Was Jesus a real person?

[Ten oz]

Precisely what i was trying to demonstrate...

 

 

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

excellent

Only in the case of Jesus it would be someone who knew someone else that claimed to have known that you had a Dragon.

[Robittybob1]

excellent

Only in the case of Jesus it would be someone who knew someone else that claimed to have known that you had a Dragon.

Jesus' twin brother wrote the gospel of St. John. You know how closely connected twins are.

[Moontanman]

excellent

Only in the case of Jesus it would be someone who knew someone else that claimed to have known that you had a Dragon

 

 

2000 years ago...

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.

 

 

Iguanas are not dragons, my dragon is a hexapod, he breathes fire that makes me feel all warm inside...

[Robittybob1]

Iguanas are not dragons, my dragon is a hexapod, he breathes fire that makes me feel all warm inside...

So it more like a "Dragon fly"? https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoowansnewsandevents.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2F30%2Fdragonfly-medicine%2F&ei=2hZDVPXQJcL4mAWD_IL4CQ&bvm=bv.77648437,d.dGY&psig=AFQjCNFCr3As1a1Fdc3RQ8FgLC61aKFxKA&ust=1413769248412504

 

Hexapods have bodies divided into an anterior head, thorax, and posterior abdomen.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

So it more like a "Dragon fly"? https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoowansnewsandevents.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F07%2F30%2Fdragonfly-medicine%2F&ei=2hZDVPXQJcL4mAWD_IL4CQ&bvm=bv.77648437,d.dGY&psig=AFQjCNFCr3As1a1Fdc3RQ8FgLC61aKFxKA&ust=1413769248412504

 

 

More like this:

 

[Robittybob1]

 

 

More like this:

 

My middle name is "George".

[Moontanman]

My middle name is "George".

Yeah and I mow Jesus' lawn every two weeks...

 

 

 

edited for PC...

Edited October 19, 2014 by Moontanman

[For Prose]

Yeah and I mow Jesus' lawn every two weeks...

 

 

 

edited for PC...

 

How can that be, when it is actually I who mow Jesus' lawn? Every week is how it likes it

[Robittybob1]

 

How can that be, when it is actually I who mow Jesus' lawn? Every week is how it likes it

Can you translate that for me please?

Edited October 19, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Eise]

@ 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.

 

I don't understand this. Do you think that Buddha existed or not. Or is it just unclear?

 

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.

 

You must stop this, Ten oz. Asking this again and again is ill will or stupidity. I answered that already:

 

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?

 

What do we know about the times that Moses or Krishna were supposed to live? Independent sources of the time before and after? No, we simply haven't.

 

The propagation of Christianity does not need Jesus to have been real as a "best explanation".

 

Right. It doesn't need this necessarily. I do agree. But putting all together, it is the easiest explanation. As long as you have no indication who the Mormon, Muhammad, or Hubbard of Christianity was, as long as you have no indication that it was all setup, your theory is worth nothing.

 

The Bible was put together to support a religious belief.

 

Yes, it was. And it was put together from different sources. Even if the gospel might not have been written by the authors that are connected with it, it clearly shows from their different styles that they were written in different times by different people. Really, you argue like a hammer. No nuances.

 

It isn't known for sure which parts are forgeries or errors.

 

That is just not true. By textual analysis modern historians (and theologians), have a quite clear picture which parts are forgeries. It is just that it is not known by the general public, not by most Christians themselves. Fundamentalist Christians think the bible is of one piece, as you do. Not even serious theologians see it that way.

[Ten oz]

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?

 

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.

I think it is the same with Christianity. The founders of it, those who established the New Testament and bible, did motivate a following. Christianity exists in New Zealand and Austrilia because it was brought there and forced on the aboriginal natives. Same goes for the Americas. Catholics were great motivators. If not for the Catholic church spending a thousand years torturing, killing, and repressing science there might not be Christianity today. Least not outside of Europe.

 

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.

 

Mormons are Christian much in the same way Christians are Jewish. Christian believe in the same intial scriptures as Judaism but then added a new Testament. Mormon believe in everything Christians believe in but then added the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon chronicles Israelites in the Armericas hundreds of years before Jesus. It also describes Jesus as coming to the Americas. Along with that they have other prophets. So there is a lot of additions that are very different from other forms of Christianity.

[Robittybob1]

Mormons are Christian much in the same way Christians are Jewish. Christian believe in the same initial scriptures as Judaism but then added a new Testament. Mormon believe in everything Christians believe in but then added the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon chronicles Israelites in the Americas hundreds of years before Jesus. It also describes Jesus as coming to the Americas. Along with that they have other prophets. So there is a lot of additions that are very different from other forms of Christianity.

I could imagine that the strength of the community keeps them together. "Its not what you know but who you know" was a saying around here, so they are more likely to employ their own, support their own, marry their own. So the issue of belief in historical events can't really rate that highly as long as there is a strong benefit of staying in the group.

We have fairly strong "Exclusive Brethren" communities in NZ. How do their beliefs differ from normal Christians I'm not sure but they are known for supporting their own members in their businesses. So is it the beliefs or the economics that feed the group? One aspect that become quite political several years back was their support for the National Party with financial donations but their members don't (aren't) allowed to vote.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money seems to support my contentions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_funding_controversy#Third_party_campaigning

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

Edited October 19, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Ten oz]

I don't understand this. Do you think that Buddha existed or not. Or is it just unclear?

Most accept Buddha lived with the caveat that no facts are known about his life. Very similar Jesus. It is worth mentioning that accepting and knowing are different things. Nothing is known for sure about either Buddha or Jesus. Their existence are accepted by many but every detail of that existence is surrounded by debate. So in my opinion it is unclear whether or not Buddha was real. I see speculating on the odds of real vs not real pointless. He simply may or may not have lived. Both possibilities remain just as likely in my opinion.

 

 

 

What do we know about the times that Moses or Krishna were supposed to live? Independent sources of the time before and after? No, we simply haven't.

There is more written about Krishna and Moses than Jesus. Beyond Hindu writings there are Buddist and Greek writings about Krishna. Locations and timelines of their lives are known as well. Perhaps that is the problem. Too much is written. So much is known about Moses and Krishna there are specific things archeologists and historians would expect to find. Vague references alone aren't enough.

 

 

 

Right. It doesn't need this necessarily. I do agree. But putting all together, it is the easiest explanation. As long as you have no indication who the Mormon, Muhammad, or Hubbard of Christianity was, as long as you have no indication that it was all setup, your theory is worth nothing.

There is no indication of who the Muhammad or Hubbard of Christianity was? For starters the point of those examples was to illustrate that entire religions can form from nothing. Just pulledmfrom imagination, pure fictions. As for them having someone who set it up, a Joseph Smith figure to lead followers, those real people aren't always adorned or credited. In the case of Judaism and Hinduism who is their Muhammad? Who set it up. Oh yeah, their Muhammad or Hubbard was a couple of mythical figures you don't feel have a place in this conversation.......

Back to Christianity, it was the Catholic church who put together the gospels, carried the religion across Oceans, and over mountains. They fought wars and repressed science to ensure Christianity continued and thrived. Which Pope is given credit for the millions of Christians living in the Americas today? Which Pope is adorned as the one responsible for ensure the continued existence of the faith? As a best explanation for why Christianity did not fall to Islam and why Jesus' has a giant statue in Brazil surely some Pope is responsible right? Yet no one gets credit, just Jesus. Laughably Evangelicals and other Protestant here in the United States argue that Catholics aren't even Christian at all. They pretend that like Mormons Catholics are there own thing with seperate beliefs. Meanwhile the Catholics church is solely responsible for Christianity's presence in current society.

 

 

Yes, it was. And it was put together from different sources. Even if the gospel might not have been written by the authors that are connected with it, it clearly shows from their different styles that they were written in different times by different people. Really, you argue like a hammer. No nuances.

 

That is just not true. By textual analysis modern historians (and theologians), have a quite clear picture which parts are forgeries. It is just that it is not known by the general public, not by most Christians themselves. Fundamentalist Christians think the bible is of one piece, as you do. Not even serious theologians see it that way.

Authorship of gospels are in dispute just as which gospels were inspirations for other gospels. It is circular logic to collective use the bible to prove the bible. As a source it is compromised. Other sources are needed but none exist.

It is like believers of the Lochness Monster who compare eye witness accounts. They match up ones that are similar and claim that the stories must be at least partially be true because the witnesses did not know each other had similar stories. It doesn't work. You can't add fiction to fiction and end up with the truth.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Ten oz

[Robittybob1]

 

There is more written about Krishna and Moses than Jesus. Beyond Hindu writings there are Buddist and Greek writings about Krishna. Locations and timelines of their lives are known as well. Perhaps that is the problem. Too much is written. So much is known about Moses and Krishna there are specific things archeologists and historians would expect to find. ...

 

 

So you are expecting archeologists to find evidence for Moses. But have they?

[Ten oz]

So you are expecting archeologists to find evidence for Moses. But have they?

No, I do not expect that evidence will be found. My point was that Moses' story is so extensive that it allows for a lot of cross reference. Jesus' story is more ambigious which allows for less proof to make speculative claims. Anything is possible I guess. If an Ark with stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments inside it is found that would be huge! Certainly make me reconsider the existence of Moses. Or even something less incredible like a something scribed into some ruin in Eygpt mentioning the Exodus.

As for Krishna the discovery and dating of Dvaraka is a big piece of evidence for those who believe he was real. Lots of hurdles remain though. Krishna's story is thousands of years older than Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc.

[Robittybob1]

No, I do not expect that evidence will be found. My point was that Moses' story is so extensive that it allows for a lot of cross reference. Jesus' story is more ambigious which allows for less proof to make speculative claims. Anything is possible I guess. If an Ark with stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments inside it is found that would be huge! Certainly make me reconsider the existence of Moses. Or even something less incredible like a something scribed into some ruin in Eygpt mentioning the Exodus.

As for Krishna the discovery and dating of Dvaraka is a big piece of evidence for those who believe he was real. Lots of hurdles remain though. Krishna's story is thousands of years older than Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc.

If you think finding Dvaraka supports Krishna, Jesus has a head start for Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth are still here today.

[Ten oz]

If you think finding Dvaraka supports Krishna, Jesus has a head start for Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth are still here today.

No doubt. Like I said there is still a long way to go.....

[Eise]

Most accept Buddha lived with the caveat that no facts are known about his life. Very similar Jesus. It is worth mentioning that accepting and knowing are different things. Nothing is known for sure about either Buddha or Jesus. Their existence are accepted by many but every detail of that existence is surrounded by debate. So in my opinion it is unclear whether or not Buddha was real. I see speculating on the odds of real vs not real pointless. He simply may or may not have lived. Both possibilities remain just as likely in my opinion.

You seem much more relaxed about the question if Buddha existed then if Jesus existed.

 

There is more written about Krishna and Moses than Jesus. Beyond Hindu writings there are Buddist and Greek writings about Krishna. Locations and timelines of their lives are known as well. Perhaps that is the problem. Too much is written. So much is known about Moses and Krishna there are specific things archeologists and historians would expect to find. Vague references alone aren't enough.

'Much written' is not worth much. There is more written about Frodo than about Jesus. But that does not mean Frodo existed. The question is if we understand the history of early Christianity better assuming Jesus exists or not. That has nothing to do with how many is written about them.

 

There is no indication of who the Muhammad or Hubbard of Christianity was? For starters the point of those examples was to illustrate that entire religions can form from nothing. Just pulledmfrom imagination, pure fictions.

Yes of course that is possible. The question is if in the case of Jesus this is more probable than assuming that it was all thought out by a few early church fathers. But as I said before: if that is the case they could have done better.

 

Back to Christianity, it was the Catholic church who put together the gospels, carried the religion across Oceans, and over mountains. They fought wars and repressed science to ensure Christianity continued and thrived. Which Pope is given credit for the millions of Christians living in the Americas today? Which Pope is adorned as the one responsible for ensure the continued existence of the faith? As a best explanation for why Christianity did not fall to Islam and why Jesus' has a giant statue in Brazil surely some Pope is responsible right? Yet no one gets credit, just Jesus. Laughably Evangelicals and other Protestant here in the United States argue that Catholics aren't even Christian at all. They pretend that like Mormons Catholics are there own thing with seperate beliefs. Meanwhile the Catholics church is solely responsible for Christianity's presence in current society.

Yes. And all this the church had also could have done with a historical Jesus. It is ridiculous to connect the later growth from the church with the question of Jesus' existence.

 

It is like believers of the Lochness Monster who compare eye witness accounts. They match up ones that are similar and claim that the stories must be at least partially be true because the witnesses did not know each other had similar stories. It doesn't work. You can't add fiction to fiction and end up with the truth.

But we know several things about how the sources grew, and changed. This development points to the fact that Jesus existed. Scribes had to change scriptures when they did not fit their theological assumptions. The later the scriptures, the bigger the amount of changes. Discussions in the early church fit to the different interpretations of Jesus' message one can find in the bible: the evangelist Mark does not fit to the position Paul takes. But Paul assumes Jesus existed, he knows a few details we find in the gospels. Why are there contradicting texts in the NT? Why did the early Church fathers put all this in their bible?

 

And you keep dismissing Josephus and Tacitus. It is clear that they both did not doubt that Jesus existed. And Josephus does not refer just to the Christians, as Tacitus does, but to Jewish history itself. Josephus refers to Jesus, to John the baptist, to Herodes, to Jesus' brother (with the same name as in the NT: James).

 

Put this all together and you get a quite consistent history. And again: read Ehrman. He explains on what grounds most historians assume that Jesus' existed. I have read Acharya S. Before Ehrman. she did not convince me.

If you think finding Dvaraka supports Krishna, Jesus has a head start for Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth are still here today.

Exactly. Just mentioning a known town does not suffice.

[Ten oz]

You seem much more relaxed about the question if Buddha existed then if Jesus existed.

 

 

I view both Buddha and Jesus the exact same way. I said as much in my previous post. So I don't understand what you mean by "more relaxed"?

[Robittybob1]

I view both Buddha and Jesus the exact same way. I said as much in my previous post. So I don't understand what you mean by "more relaxed"?

It is strange that Jesus is mentioned in the Koran, and has similarities to Buddha and Krishna and is supposed to be the Jewish Messiah. Somehow he links all major religions. Weird.

The Hidden Story of Jesus (Part 1 of 11) 11 short YT covering the whole documentary. Still a lot of confusion persists for historical records were made up to support local traditions.

But as I found there is a way of reading the true history written in another book. But it seems really difficult to connect to this book. I read two sentences from it in 1991 but nothing more since then.

I don't know much about these books but I was doing a quick Google search and came across this Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mavarine-du-marie/record-books-kept-in-heaven/376922985728003

I'm going to look into it further.

Now that seems to be one person's view on the situation, but there are definite references to these books mentioned in ancient texts, so I'm not the only person to ever be claiming to have been shown part of these books.

https://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ec0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F1d%2F5c%2F5b%2F1d5c5b36353f6232070cbb04c4610364.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fjosieannmcbride%2Fbook-of-life-in-one-sense-the-book-of-life-is-the-%2F&docid=R9Oyhn5oxHBOTM&tbnid=-s1sERQAte82MM%3A&w=236&h=247&ei=TIRFVPrsO8K78gX0x4LYAg&ved=undefined&iact=c

 

That image is similar to what I saw as the vision zoomed out but the book I saw, I was looking at the pages of the open book not just at the book end-on. So I never knew what the book was called but it seemed to be history, like a "Book of Deeds" if anything.

 

Similar in the way the book was displayed in Glory, the lighting etc and the fact it was open.

Edited October 20, 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.

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?

 

 

At this stage I think you are lying, care to refute that assertion? Your word is not good enough, I need proof...

[Robittybob1]

 

 

At this stage I think you are lying, care to refute that assertion? Your word is not good enough, I need proof...

Was that in response to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-9#entry832799.

Proof of that is rather difficult but I still don't think it is impossible.

^{Mark chapter 16:20} And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

You might be forcing me to ask for signs to prove what I say is true. But if Jesus was a real person, that shouldn't be too difficult at all.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

Was that in response to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-9#entry832799.

Proof of that is rather difficult but I still don't think it is impossible.

Yet you provide no evidence, my invisible dragon has just as much evidence.

 

You might be forcing me to ask for signs to prove what I say is true. But if Jesus was a real person, that shouldn't be too difficult at all.

If frogs had wing they wouldn't bust their little slimy butts when they jump.

 

I also have a flying dog but he only flies when i am looking and no one else has seen him fly... Do you understand what i am saying?

 

Why would you believe something so outrageous as a god, lets cut to the chase that is what this conversation is about, why would you believe such a thing with no evidence? I can give better evidence for aliens visiting the earth than you can for a god, son of god or any other supernatural thing...

[Ten oz]

It is strange that Jesus is mentioned in the Koran, and has similarities to Buddha and Krishna and is supposed to be the Jewish Messiah. Somehow he links all major religions. Weird.

The Hidden Story of Jesus (Part 1 of 11) 11 short YT covering the whole documentary. Still a lot of confusion persists for historical records were made up to support local traditions.

 

Interesting video. I only watched part one of the eleven. I got the impression they were implying that not only were the stories similar but that Krishna and Jesus were literally the same. That god has come to earth in human form more than once. As an atheist I do not believe that but the idea does make as much sense as any other religious belief.

 

One problem with trying to compare Jesus to Krishna or any other God and or culture is finding people with the right education to do so. Christian Theologians who are considered expert scholars when dicussing Jesus and the Bible are not equally qualified to comment on Krishna and vice versa. That is one of the problems the story of the Exodus runs into; Christian theology crosses into Egyptology. A point Richard Carrier has made regarding theologians who understand the classics only as they apply to Christians. Roman history, Greek history, Jewish history, and etc are far bigger than simply containing accessory works to support Christian theories with. Many biblical scholars do study other fields but are not experts in them. Just as scholars of Hindu may read the Bible but are not experts on Jesus or Christianity. So where is the field of study which encapsulates Chritianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc? Who is qualified to make expert comparisons? I just don't see it happening. Christian theologians study the Bible and western civilization as it applies to Christianity while Hindu theologians do the same for Hinduism.

[Robittybob1]

 

Yet you provide no evidence, my invisible dragon has just as much evidence.

 

 

If frogs had wing they wouldn't bust their little slimy butts when they jump.

 

I also have a flying dog but he only flies when i am looking and no one else has seen him fly... Do you understand what i am saying?

 

Why would you believe something so outrageous as a god, lets cut to the chase that is what this conversation is about, why would you believe such a thing with no evidence? I can give better evidence for aliens visiting the earth than you can for a god, son of god or any other supernatural thing...

I think you have followed my story from the start in this thread, how I refused to work till I knew the truth, and then I had the trouble with the paranoia of being abducted by aliens, but at Easter that year I had the vision of the book. I said "God if that is true let me find some evidence of this in ancient books", and over the years the evidence has been revealed but at that time in 1991 no one would ever say that "Mary the mother of Jesus had twins". But now the internet is full of references to Jesus having a twin brother.

 

 

So I believe for I have seen it myself. But I have never seen frogs that fly or dogs with wings ....