Was Jesus a real person?

[Robittybob1]

In the context of this discussion I am using it to summarizing Eise's request for proof "it" (Jesus and a new religion) was made up by design.

 

Again, I do not pretend to know/understand the motives behind any of the apostle. Just as I don't know the motives behind people who claim to have seen Bigfoot, aliens, Lochness monster, and so on. I don't think understanding those motives are necessary. If I am to believe in Bigfoot, aliens, Lochness monster, or etc I need proof they exist. Lack of "positive hints" is not required for me to be doubtful.

What would you do if the proof required you to do something other than just reading about it?

Imagine if they said: "You can see the " Bigfoot, aliens, Lochness monster" for yourself, you just need to go there".

 

That is what I discovered about Jesus too, you won't get the picture till you take a step to go there.

It is like a madness or even a childlike game in a way, but then it becomes real.

But I would say you are one hell of lot more likely to find evidence for Jesus than the others IMO.

 

What would you do? Would you go to that "Sacred Mountain"? (See below)

For you want to know Peter and this is what he has said in 2 Peter 1:16-17. (I have always liked this verse for he is denying that they followed cleverly devised stories, as you guys seem to always imply today.) http://biblehub.com/niv/2_peter/1.htm

 

 

16For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.17He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”^b 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

[Ten oz]

What would you do if the proof required you to do something other than just reading about it?

Imagine if they said: "You can see the " Bigfoot, aliens, Lochness monster" for yourself, you just need to go there".

 

That is what I discovered about Jesus too, you won't get the picture till you take a step to go there.

It is like a madness or even a childlike game in a way, but then it becomes real.

I do not have a problem with the idea that Jesus may have been a real person. It is not an itch that needs scratching. It is not ultimately that important to me. I started this thread only because I find the certainty in others about it strange.

As for the miraculous aspects of Jesus; I have very little faith. So little that if presented a chance to know 100% for sure whether or not there is a god I couldn't be bothered. I don't need to travel into out space to see and finally know 100% that the earth is round just like I don't need to go anywhere to know there was never a man raised from the dead.

 

But I would say you are one hell of lot more likely to find evidence for Jesus than the others IMO.

 

Based on what? Lots of first hand accounts of Bigfoot, Lochness Monster, and aliens. Lots of pseudo scientific research supporting a variety of physical evidence. I think a lot of people do not follow there own logic out. If I were to tell friends I saw Bigfoot the would laugh at me. If I told the same group I saw a ghost it would start a conversation where a few of them might believe me while others would remain skeptical. If I claimed to have a vision from god most all of them would either be impressed or respectful and not criticize. What is the difference? Why are ghost sightings seen as less crazy than Bigfoot sightings? Why are God visions accepted? Edited October 17, 2014 by Ten oz

[For Prose]

Why are ghost sightings seen as less crazy than Bigfoot sightings? Why are God visions accepted?

 

This raises an excellent question. Perhaps, if ol' Nessie or large foot were credited with the creation of everything past, present, and future, people might actually be more accepting.

 

Of course, I was not aware that god Visions were accepted. From my past experience as a child attending many different churches, if someone were to have come forward and speak about either visions of god, people would be a bit skeptical, with the exception of it coming from a religious "authority". Hearing messages from prayer was more accepted but even then, many didn't claim this bit and I am from the deep south where there are wayyyyy more churches than schools. You can literally not travel more than a few miles without coming across some form of church.

 

I have also found myself wondering why certain individuals, even some of the most logical and intellectual people I know, subscribe to ghosts or even the possibility.

[Robittybob1]

... Lots of first hand accounts of Bigfoot, Lochness Monster, and aliens. Lots of pseudo scientific research supporting a variety of physical evidence. I think a lot of people do not follow there own logic out. If I were to tell friends I saw Bigfoot the would laugh at me. If I told the same group I saw a ghost it would start a conversation where a few of them might believe me while others would remain skeptical. If I claimed to have a vision from god most all of them would either be impressed or respectful and not criticize. What is the difference? Why are ghost sightings seen as less crazy than Bigfoot sightings? Why are God visions accepted?

Have you seen a Bigfoot or a UFO or even a ghost? My friend and I saw a UFO in 1975, but we don't have Bigfoot in NZ. I haven't seen or experienced a ghost either, yet I was challenged to stay in this haunted hotel but I chickened out.

I'm not so sure everyone believes a God vision either. They know that the mind is powerful and pretty weird, so maybe visions and dreams are sort of everyday things.

Plenty of people believe that I had a vision but no one has really believed the vision about Mary having twins etc. Do you realise I was able to read this from a book, and there were pages and pages of other writing in that book. I wanted to go back there and read the rest of it, but so far that hasn't happened.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Eise]

But that wasn't what Jesus was depending on. Jesus to me believed in Heaven, for example, he said at his trial something like "My kingdom is not of this Earth" and he told his followers "not to store up riches here on Earth where they can get stolen but in Heaven".

 

The first citation is of John, the latest of the four gospels (but only as 'world', not 'earth'). I did not find the second.

 

The problem for all people reporting about Jesus in later year is that the apocalypse that Jesus had said to happen in his own life, did not happen. That means God's Kingdom on earth was not restored. You do not find references to 'a kingdom in heaven' in Mark. So Matthew, Luke and John changed God's Kingdom in Heaven, another place, not here on earth, not of this world.

 

It is exactly these kind of changes, that show that scribes had to change Jesus message. So one way of trying to find the historical Jesus is extrapolating these changes back in time. And then of course strip off all the supernatural episodes.

@ Eise, your implication that a counter narrative is neccessary feels like an extra requirement you are only applying to Jesus. If I were to say about Krishna what I am about Jesus, that it is not clear he was a real person, I seriously doubt you'd challange by asking for proof that Hinduism was was made up . I have stated several times in this thread that the Exodus and Moses are myths. Not once have you asked for a counter narrative regarding either. It seems that the counter narrative only applies to Jesus.

Btw, there is a counter narrative if you want one. I have already provided links. I don't argue it myself because I do not find it neccessary. Why the gospels were written the way they were is a seperate issue from whether or not Jesus was a real person. I only need to know whether or not Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, and etc are accurate. I do not need to understand their motives.

 

O, come on. You focus again and again on one sentence arguments. We know a lot of the time in which Jesus was supposed to live. We have pretty reliable sources. We do not have them of Krishna. And then the life of Jesus fits pretty well in this historical context. So the easiest explanation of Christianity spreading in antiquity is that a person Jesus really existed, impressed people, and from this sectarian movement grew a complete religion. With of course all its exaggerations, projections, forgeries, will to power etc.

 

I don't need counter narratives because we know nothing of the times that Moses and Krishna were supposed to live. But who knows? Maybe we once will find some prove of a small Jewish tribe traveling from Egypt to Canaan, maybe because they felt mobbed after one or more natural disasters that had a big impact on the economy of Egypt. But at the moment we have none. So with no hints at all, we can only let rest the question if there is some historical core in the stories of Moses and Krishna.

 

You would make a bad historian, if you are not interested in how and why the sources you are using developed the way they did. It may help to estimate the measure of reliability of your sources.

 

Why are ghost sightings seen as less crazy than Bigfoot sightings? Why are God visions accepted?

This raises an excellent question. Perhaps, if ol' Nessie or large foot were credited with the creation of everything past, present, and future, people might actually be more accepting.

 

 

This is so naive. Historians do not ask you to believe in something supernatural. They just think that the best explanation for the early rise of Christianity is that a apocalyptic preacher called Jesus really existed in Palestine in those days. This comparison is empty as it can be.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Eise

[Robittybob1]

 

The first citation is of John, the latest of the four gospels (but only as 'world', not 'earth'). I did not find the second.

 

The problem for all people reporting about Jesus in later year is that the apocalypse that Jesus had said to happen in his own life, did not happen. That means God's Kingdom on earth was not restored. You do not find references to 'a kingdom in heaven' in Mark. So Matthew, Luke and John changed God's Kingdom in Heaven, another place, not here on earth, not of this world.

 

It is exactly these kind of changes, that show that scribes had to change Jesus message. So one way of trying to find the historical Jesus is extrapolating these changes back in time. And then of course strip off all the supernatural episodes.

 

I had put all the references as footnotes to my post:

Matthew 6:19-20

 

 

19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20"But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;…

There certainly could be a dichotomy between what Jesus thought his role was going to be and what the populace had hoped for one that had some degree of royal lineage. Each and every one of the disciples might have their own expectations. Some would have been looking for someone to restore the kingship to the House of David. Others would be looking to overflow the Romans. What did Jesus expect? What did he feel God wanted? Did Jesus want what God wanted, did the populace want either of these?

 

What were Jesus' apocryphal predictions that you think weren't satisfied?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

Edited October 18, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Eise]

What were Jesus' apocryphal predictions that you think weren't satisfied?

 

Mark 9:1:

 

And Jesus was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”

 

Mark 1:14-15:

 

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

 

Jesus expected the kingdom of God more or less in, or shortly after, his life time.

 

You see? Mark. The oldest Gospel. You also find these in Luke, but not in Matthew and John. But John talks about the kingdom of God as heaven, 'not of this world'.

 

I leave it to you what this worldly kingdom of God would be like.

[Robittybob1]

 

Mark 9:1:

 

 

Mark 1:14-15:

 

 

Jesus expected the kingdom of God more or less in, or shortly after, his life time.

 

You see? Mark. The oldest Gospel. You also find these in Luke, but not in Matthew and John. But John talks about the kingdom of God as heaven, 'not of this world'.

 

I leave it to you what this worldly kingdom of God would be like.

OK I accept that it appears that Jesus had an expectation and that expectation turned out wrong. I don't take the view that everything that Jesus said is gospel. He is a man subject to the thoughts and cultures of the time. He made mistakes like we all do. He isn't judged on mistakes. Yet we seem to expect him not to make any errors, but that is not the case.

 

OK so he made a mistake. I think there are other obvious mistakes he seems to make as well. He doesn't know everything, like does he believe in Noah's Ark, does he know about evolution? He walks up to a tree thinking it should have fruit on it out of season. He thinks birds of the air get some sort of special attention, I'm sure that is naive.

[Moontanman]

No other historical figure would assumed real on such sparse evidence as religious figures, Jesus is among the lest documented religious figure of all. No significant mention of Jesus any place but the bible and what little of that there is was decades or centuries after the fact. I keep reading of hints and no solid information and religious scholars who have a vested interest in Jesus being real.

 

 

No other historical figure would be assumed to exist on such scant evidence. There are more sources for dragons than Jesus...

[Eise]

Robittybob1,

You do not get what I am arguing: that the contents of the scriptures changed the later they were written: when it turned out that Jesus was wrong, they changed Jesus' idea (of the kingdom of God coming in Jesus' time, or at least very soon) into heaven. Instead of 'projecting' God's kingdom horizontally in time, they projected it vertically to another place, in heaven.

 

But you are a believer, you try to save as much of the miracle as you can. I don't. I try to see what the real historical picture of Jesus is, and then there is not much left. Forget about the miracles, if you want to find truth.

Moontanman,

 

With your dragons you make the same error again and again. Comparing something supernatural with something natural. I don't defend the existence of the son of God.

 

No other historical figure would assumed real on such sparse evidence as religious figures, Jesus is among the lest documented religious figure of all.

 

You are silly. Do we have more hints for the existence of Ra, of Buddha, of Moses, of Krishna? Do we know independently of their historical contexts?

 

I keep reading of hints and no solid information and religious scholars who have a vested interest in Jesus being real.

 

And I don't read anything against Jesus being real by scholars who have a vested interest in Jesus not being real. It is a kind of anti-theism that betrays the principles of historical science. They are mostly angry men/women for who every means of dispute of religion is ok.

[Ten oz]

Of course, I was not aware that god Visions were accepted. From my past experience as a child attending many different churches, if someone were to have come forward and speak about either visions of god, people would be a bit skeptical, with the exception of it coming from a religious "authority". Hearing messages from prayer was more accepted but even then, many didn't claim this bit and I am from the deep south where there are wayyyyy more churches than schools. You can literally not travel more than a few miles without coming across some form of church.

 

I have also found myself wondering why certain individuals, even some of the most logical and intellectual people I know, subscribe to ghosts or even the possibility.

Have you seen a Bigfoot or a UFO or even a ghost? My friend and I saw a UFO in 1975, but we don't have Bigfoot in NZ. I haven't seen or experienced a ghost either, yet I was challenged to stay in this haunted hotel but I chickened out.

I'm not so sure everyone believes a God vision either. They know that the mind is powerful and pretty weird, so maybe visions and dreams are sort of everyday things.

Plenty of people believe that I had a vision but no one has really believed the vision about Mary having twins etc. Do you realise I was able to read this from a book, and there were pages and pages of other writing in that book. I wanted to go back there and read the rest of it, but so far that hasn't happened.

By vision of god I was referencing any numbers of godly impressions people claim to receive. People will claim to have received "signs" from god that help direct their decisions, people pray about things in their lives until they receive an "answer", people claim god "saved" them from or during accidents, and etc, etc, etc. All of that is widely accepted in society as perfectly normal. Seeing UFO's are not. That is not to say everyone believes, it is just to say they accept it as normal.

The first citation is of John, the latest of the four gospels (but only as 'world', not 'earth'). I did not find the second.

 

The problem for all people reporting about Jesus in later year is that the apocalypse that Jesus had said to happen in his own life, did not happen. That means God's Kingdom on earth was not restored. You do not find references to 'a kingdom in heaven' in Mark. So Matthew, Luke and John changed God's Kingdom in Heaven, another place, not here on earth, not of this world.

 

It is exactly these kind of changes, that show that scribes had to change Jesus message. So one way of trying to find the historical Jesus is extrapolating these changes back in time. And then of course strip off all the supernatural episodes.

 

 

O, come on. You focus again and again on one sentence arguments. We know a lot of the time in which Jesus was supposed to live. We have pretty reliable sources.

The Bible is not "sources". It is a single source and in my opinion does not contain a single bit of information that is not completely fictious or has been intentional manipulated over time. Outside of that source nothing describes Jesus' life. Tacitus did not describe Jesus' life. He merely described others as being Christian.

 

And then the life of Jesus fits pretty well in this historical context. So the easiest explanation of Christianity spreading in antiquity is that a person Jesus really existed, impressed people, and from this sectarian movement grew a complete religion. With of course all its exaggerations, projections, forgeries, will to power etc.

I do not believe this a viable argument. You are saying that in order for Christianity to have grown and spread Jesus must have been real. If the growth and spread of religions require real messiahs or prophets than by that logic Moses and Krishna must have been real as well. Or for that matter Apollo, Horus, and etc.

 

I don't need counter narratives because we know nothing of the times that Moses and Krishna were supposed to live. But who knows? Maybe we once will find some prove of a small Jewish tribe traveling from Egypt to Canaan, maybe because they felt mobbed after one or more natural disasters that had a big impact on the economy of Egypt. But at the moment we have none. So with no hints at all, we can only let rest the question if there is some historical core in the stories of Moses and Krishna.

Nothing? In the story of Moses we know all the locations of his story and they are real places. We know all the groups of people and cultures and they are real as well. Moses is even credited for producing the 10 commandments which too is a real thing. What written work is Jesus credited with having produced? Where is your alternative theory for where the 10 commandments came from?

Krishna is written about literary works that go back far as 8th century BC. Beyond the several Hindu works there are Greek and Buddist literary source. Also the discovery of Dvaraka is evidence of that the city where Krishna is said to have lived, which was swallowed by the sea, is a real place. Dating the site even shows it is old enough.

 

You would make a bad historian, if you are not interested in how and why the sources you are using developed the way they did. It may help to estimate the measure of reliability of your sources.

Reliability of my sources? What source are you referring? What claims have I made? I am not seeking to prove Jesus was not a real person. I am saying that it is unclear, not known. You are the one making the definitive statements about Jesus. You even describe what he was like calling him "charismatic". How could we possibly know that?

 

 

 

This is so naive. Historians do not ask you to believe in something supernatural. They just think that the best explanation for the early rise of Christianity is that a apocalyptic preacher called Jesus really existed in Palestine in those days. This comparison is empty as it can be.

.....and yet you have continued to sight arguments by Bart Ehrman:

"Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teenager. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[4] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and also textual criticism."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

 

So the historians you sight do not ask others to believe in the supernatural that just believe in the supernatural themselves? A fact you don't think bias' their work?

[Robittybob1]

No other historical figure would assumed real on such sparse evidence as religious figures, Jesus is among the lest documented religious figure of all. No significant mention of Jesus any place but the bible and what little of that there is was decades or centuries after the fact. I keep reading of hints and no solid information and religious scholars who have a vested interest in Jesus being real.

 

 

No other historical figure would be assumed to exist on such scant evidence. There are more sources for dragons than Jesus...

You need to come up with real facts in your assertions please. Has someone been able to support you?

[Eise]

The Bible is not "sources". It is a single source

 

The bible a single source?? We know how it was put together, which discussion were held what should belong to the bible, we know there were mere than 20 gospels, but that slowly after many discussions (which of course were also against the background of theological debates, not of historical reliability) the present new testament was chosen.

 

in my opinion does not contain a single bit of information that is not completely fictious or has been intentional manipulated over time. Outside of that source nothing describes Jesus' life. Tacitus did not describe Jesus' life. He merely described others as being Christian.

 

That is your opinion, yes. Nothing more.

 

You are saying that in order for Christianity to have grown and spread Jesus must have been real. If the growth and spread of religions require real messiahs or prophets than by that logic Moses and Krishna must have been real as well. Or for that matter Apollo, Horus, and etc.

 

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying it is the easiest explanation.

 

If the growth and spread of religions require real messiahs or prophets than by that logic Moses and Krishna must have been real as well. Or for that matter Apollo, Horus, and etc.

 

No, I did not say that too. This is tiresome, Ten oz. You twist my words. I said that considering everything we know about ancient Palestine, and about the spreading of Christianity, the best explanation is to suppose that Jesus existed. Don't you see the difference?

 

The references in the new testament to events that happened in those days that we know that really happened, are more precise than anything we have about Krishna, Moses, Horus o whoever. Most historians even agree that Buddha existed, but he also has not written anything, and his stories were only written down after a few centuries.

 

I agree that we don't know that Jesus existed, but it is just the most viable hypothesis, knowing what was before, and what came after. The bible just fits in, if you strip out the errors, forgeries, miracle etc.

 

And you cite selectively. About Ehrman, from the same article:

 

During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.

 

And about his work:

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman introduces New Testament textual criticism. He outlines the development of New Testament manuscripts and the process and cause of manuscript errors in the New Testament.

 

In Jesus, Interrupted, he describes the progress scholars have made in understanding the Bible over the past two hundred years and the results of their study, results which are often unknown among the population at large. In doing so, he highlights the diversity of views found in the New Testament, the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later, and the later invention of Christian doctrines—such as the suffering messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity.

 

In Forged, Ehrman posits some New Testament books are literary forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how it was condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit. His scholarly book, Forgery and Counterforgery, is an advanced look at the practice of forgery in the NT and early Christian literature. It makes a case for considering falsely attributed or pseudepigraphic books in the New Testament and early Christian literature "forgery", looks at why certain New Testament and early Christian works are considered forged, and the broader phenomenon in the Greco-Roman world.

 

In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, defending the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely mythical or fictitious being.

 

2014 saw the publication of How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee which examines the historical Jesus, who according to Ehrman neither thought of himself as God nor claimed to be God, and how he came to be thought of as the incarnation of God himself.

 

[Robittybob1]

Robittybob1,

 

You do not get what I am arguing: that the contents of the scriptures changed the later they were written: when it turned out that Jesus was wrong, they changed Jesus' idea (of the kingdom of God coming in Jesus' time, or at least very soon) into heaven. Instead of 'projecting' God's kingdom horizontally in time, they projected it vertically to another place, in heaven.

 

But you are a believer, you try to save as much of the miracle as you can. I don't. I try to see what the real historical picture of Jesus is, and then there is not much left. Forget about the miracles, if you want to find truth.

 

Eise:

I had already got that but I had not addressed it as I was very tired at the time of my previous post.

OK you have noted a change in the gospels depending on the time they were written, and that is understandable.

For the majority of the Jesus of Nazareth followers the moment he was arrested the game was over, they fled and started looking for another messiah. Once Jesus was crucified even more of them knew that Jesus of Nazareth was a totally lost cause.

So why did Mark even bother to write a gospel? He knew the leader was dead but even in his earliest version the tomb 3 days later was empty, he admits to some extend something strange was going on. So if he was a follower of Christ Jesus, he was following someone who was now a spirit ruling from the Heavenlies, even if he thought the apocalypse was going to be in his lifetime that was his imagination, his expectation.

 

There are more apocalyptic preachers running around even among scientists now, in this day and age, overpopulation, climate change, nuclear MAD destruction, ISIS terrorism and on and on.

Maybe a modern Gospel would have to include all of them as part of the apocalypse. Could the writers of the gospels have predicted all the events that has occurred and will occur in the 2-3,000 years post Jesus?

Is the same Christ still in charge that said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" and, "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age"? (Matthew 28:18 and 20)

Is Christ Jesus in control of all this "overpopulation, climate change, nuclear MAD destruction, ISIS terrorism and on and on"?

Edited October 18, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

You need to come up with real facts in your assertions please. Has someone been able to support you?

 

 

Jesus has two mentions outside the bible, neither of which is contemporary with Jesus. The bible is the claim not evidence of the claim.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon

 

Narratives about dragons often involve them being killed by a hero. This topos can be traced to the Chaoskampf of the mythology of the Ancient Near East (e.g. Hadad vs. Yam, Marduk vs. Tiamat, Teshub vs. Illuyanka, etc.; the Biblical Leviathan presumably reflects a corresponding opponent of an early version ofYahweh). The motif is continued in Greek Apollo, and the early Christian narratives about Archangel Michael and Saint George. The slaying of Vrtra by Indra in theRigveda also belongs in this category. The theme survives into medieval legend and folklore, with dragon slayers such as Beowulf, Sigurd, Tristan, Margaret the Virgin,Heinrich von Winkelried, Dobrynya Nikitich, Skuba Dratewka/Krakus. In Biblical myth, the archetype is alluded to in the descendants of Adam crushing the head of theSerpent, and in Christian mythology, this was interpreted as corresponding to Christ as the "New Adam" crushing the Devil.

 

 

 

Jesus is assumed to be real be many texts only two of which were written within decades of his supposed life. Dragons are written about a plethora of times, many first hand accounts, but no one thinks dragons were real. To say the evidence for Jesus is thin giving him far too much credence,,,

[Robittybob1]

 

 

Jesus has two mentions outside the bible, neither of which is contemporary with Jesus. The bible is the claim not evidence of the claim.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon

 

 

 

Jesus is assumed to be real be many texts only two of which were written within decades of his supposed life. Dragons are written about a plethora of times, many first hand accounts, but no one thinks dragons were real. To say the evidence for Jesus is thin giving him far too much credence,,,

Have you had first hand experience of a dragon?

[Moontanman]

Have you had first hand experience of a dragon?

 

Do you have any first hand evidence of Jesus?

[Robittybob1]

 

Do you have any first hand evidence of Jesus?

I will answer you but you answer me first please.

[Ten oz]

@ Eise, Buddha is a good example. If you posted that it were unclear if Buddha had been a real person you'd receive no argument from me.

As for the existence of Jesus being the "best explanation" I challange you to apply that line of thinking to Moses or Krishna. Wouldn't the "best explanation" for Moses and the 10 commandment also be that Moses was some "charismatic" preacher? I just don't see the difference, honestly.

Most belief systems centered around supernatural nonsense are generally based fully on fiction. The people who right the stories down are the creators. Not the actual gods, saviors, prophets, or messiahs written about. L. Ron Hubert pulled Scientology out of thin air and within decades has grown in membership and notiriaty. Joseph Smith pulled the Book of Mormon out of thin air and in just a couple hundred years has 15 million followers. Muhammad pulled the Quran out of thin air and today there is 1.6 billion Muslims. The propagation of Christianity does not need Jesus to have been real as a "best explanation". Just as the existence of aliens is not the best explanation for the propagation of Scientology. I think simply saying that people believe what they want to believe is a good enough explanation.

As for the Bible being one source....it is. The Bible was put together to support a religious belief. Sure different parts have different authors but it was assemble with a purpose and not everything went into it, not all the translation can be trusted, and most of of it is pure fiction. You say once you "strip out the errors, forgeries, miricales, and etc" it fits in but to me that reads more like just picking and choosing the parts you want. It isn't known for sure which parts are forgeries or errors. The translations are often debated amongst various denominations within the religion itself and even more so outside the religion. It is an act of faith to believe truth can be derived from the bible by simply selectively ignoring portions of it.

Have you had first hand experience of a dragon?

 

Nope, absolutely not. I do not have first hand experience of ogres, leprechauns, aliens, or ghosts either.

[Moontanman]

I will answer you but you answer me first please.

 

 

Yes, I have one as a pet...

[Robittybob1]

 

 

Yes, I have one as a pet...

So you would not have much trouble "slaying the dragon", if you ever wanted to do this to your pet dragon. What species of reptile is it?

@ Eise, Buddha is a good example. If you posted that it were unclear if Buddha had been a real person you'd receive no argument from me.

As for the existence of Jesus being the "best explanation" I challange you to apply that line of thinking to Moses or Krishna. Wouldn't the "best explanation" for Moses and the 10 commandment also be that Moses was some "charismatic" preacher? I just don't see the difference, honestly.

Most belief systems centered around supernatural nonsense are generally based fully on fiction. The people who right the stories down are the creators. Not the actual gods, saviors, prophets, or messiahs written about. L. Ron Hubert pulled Scientology out of thin air and within decades has grown in membership and notiriaty. Joseph Smith pulled the Book of Mormon out of thin air and in just a couple hundred years has 15 million followers. Muhammad pulled the Quran out of thin air and today there is 1.6 billion Muslims. The propagation of Christianity does not need Jesus to have been real as a "best explanation". Just as the existence of aliens is not the best explanation for the propagation of Scientology. I think simply saying that people believe what they want to believe is a good enough explanation.

As for the Bible being one source....it is. The Bible was put together to support a religious belief. Sure different parts have different authors but it was assemble with a purpose and not everything went into it, not all the translation can be trusted, and most of of it is pure fiction. You say once you "strip out the errors, forgeries, miracles, and etc" it fits in but to me that reads more like just picking and choosing the parts you want. It isn't known for sure which parts are forgeries or errors. The translations are often debated amongst various denominations within the religion itself and even more so outside the religion. It is an act of faith to believe truth can be derived from the bible by simply selectively ignoring portions of it.

...

You have made some good points especially about the Scientology, Mormon and Muslim religions and you seem to be asking "how come Christianity is not the same?".

Was it that the founders of these other religions stayed alive long enough to motivate a following?

Does Scientology work for their converts? I know the Muslims are doing well in their Caliphate. They must feel there is some protection being within their groups.

Mormons seem to be a branch of Christians, so they are basically Christians are they not?

I don't know enough about Scientology to comment, but I did read the Koran and I wasn't impressed.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

So you would not have much trouble "slaying the dragon", if you ever wanted to do this to your pet dragon. What species of reptile is it?

There are some good points especially about Scientology, Mormons and Muslims religions and you ask how come Christianity is not the same.

Was it that the founders of these religions stayed alive long enough to motivate a following?

Does Scientology work for their converts? I know the Muslims are doing well in their Caliphate. They must feel there is some protection being within their groups.

Mormons seem to be a branch of Christians, so they are basically Christians are they not?

I don't know enough about Scientology to comment, but I did read the Koran and wasn't impressed.

 

 

You didn't answer my question and Mormons are Christians only if you believe there are billions of other gods and Jesus and Satan are brothers..

[Robittybob1]

 

 

You didn't answer my question and Mormons are Christians only if you believe there are billions of other gods and Jesus and Satan are brothers..

At this stage I think you are lying about having a pet dragon, so AFAIAC you have not answered my question adequately yet. I want absolute proof you have a pet dragon, and your word is just not good enough. You expect Jesus to have multiple attestations so we'd expect the same from you.

I haven't heard about the Mormon's billions of other gods, even though Jesus was quoted as saying "you are gods" so maybe we all are gods, so even in Christianity there is the possibility of billions of gods.

Who knows whether Jesus and Satan are brothers?

Edited October 19, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

At this stage I think you are lying about having a pet dragon, so AFAIAC you have not answered my question adequately yet. I want absolute proof you have a pet dragon, and your word is just not good enough. You expect Jesus to have multiple attestations so we'd expect the same from you.

 

 

Precisely what i was trying to demonstrate...

 

 

​My dragon is invisible and only I can sense him....

Edited October 19, 2014 by Moontanman

[Robittybob1]

 

 

Precisely what i was trying to demonstrate...

 

 

​My dragon is invisible and only I can sense him....

Are you confessing that you were lying? You needn't have done that, you could have got another witness, and some photos. A "friend" had a pet iguana so it is not impossible to have a pet dragon.