Yes. And he died for our sin, so the we may have ever lasting life. But oh how he suffered. That is why, when we go through times of trial we must not feel sorry for our selves. Jesus suffered far worse. Who are we not to suffer from time to time?
yes there is, the scriptures are proof to his being here on earth around the time of his birth and his death. his death is recorded in the SECULAR RECORD IN ROME, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, THE SECULAR RECORD. and not only is it in that record it's recorded in the scripture proof texts themselves with many other christian proofs recorded in history.
Baloney. The scriptures are just hearsay. It's all just sheer speculation. There's no direct evidence; not a comb the guy used, a bit of his hair, a shoe, a bone .... nothing. Just a bunch of words. Of course if you believe everything that people have written, then Dr. Seuss, Grimm's Faerie Tales, and Mother Goose must baffle you.
The guy was supposed to have been a carpenter, so is theere a piece of furniture with a providence around anywhere?
It's pretty strange that items that have been proven to have belonged to people a lot older than 2000 years has survived and are in museuims, yet someone as famous as Jesus was supposed to be didn't leave a speck of evidence.
Hearsay is anecdotal evidence given to another person by another person about a third person. The Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are first person accounts written by eye witnesses who knew the man personally. That isn't hearsay. People have gone to the gas chamber on less evidence. And contrary to popular belief, the writers of the Gospels weren't witless peasants or plain simple fishermen. As a matter of fact, Luke was an educated physician.
Matthew, Mark Luke all use each other as references and that is now independent source. That is circular sourcing. Highly questionable and would never be allowed in any real historical document that was being verified as authentic.
Just for the record, there was no such thing as an 'educated physician' at that time.
Matthew, Mark and Luke do not use each other for source material....if that were true, then there would be no discrepancies in the Gospels, when in fact, the same events are described in differing ways. This would indicate the author's vison, or version, of the observation being made. Besides, there are other references to Christ in secular literature of the same time period. You would think that in at least one of these, the author would have bothered with the traditional disclaimer..."Any resemblance to any person, living or dead, fact or fictional, is purely the result of the author trying to promote a dangerous and potentially lethal new version of how God works. Practising said religion could get you persecuted, imprisoned or killed. Have a nice day"
I also said it was speculation, because there's no direct and tangible, corroborating evidence backing up Jesus' existence
Jee, I knew a guy one time that I saw walking on water. Nevermind that I'd had a few nips at the Irish whiskey and I'm the only one that wrote about it.
Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. are the only ones that wrote about these spectacular events? Did anyone else scribble stuff down about the guy?
No corroborating eyewitness testimony or verifiable evidence makes the issue rather dubious.
And like I said, when people that lived and died in ages much earlier left artifacts and other remains as evidence of their existences and yet there's not a hair that can be verified as having belonged on Jesus' head considering he had hundreds and thousands of followers, it makes for lots of speculation as to the guy's existence. When experts are still arguing about the issue after 2 millennia, it adds even further doubt.
As Mark Twain once said, "“If it is a miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a fact, proof is necessary”. Religious people will believe the weirdest crap on the flimsiest of evidence.
If he existed, I'd relish a chance to chat with him.
The other critter that Christians worship, however, I'd avoid like the plague because it's an immature sociopath with very limited intelligence.
Either way. facts leave no room for doubt, but as there's very few facts concerning the existence of Jesus, there's much room for doubt. As you say you have no doubt that I'll meet him, you must have an abundance of facts that no-one else on the planet has ever discovered.
The scriptures are not history, they are simply religious stories.
Since huge parts of the scriptures are parables, how do you know which ones are real and which ones are not. The entire bible is questionable as there are many stories that are said to be true that have been proven not to have happened.
The nonsense started right at the beginning of the Bible in Genesis.
Noah and his ark.
There are some 1.75 million known species of living things on Earth. There's no possible way that 2 of each could be loaded onto a boat that's only 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, let alone have room for food for them for 40 days. And remember this thing had to be stable in order to stay in one piece in turbulent conditions. That means it would have to contain support structures within it, which would use up even more room.
Besides that, there's not enough water on the planet to flood the planet so that everything is under 40 feet of water.
So, since the first book in the Bible has faerie tales like Noah and his ark in it, it kind of throws off the credibility of the rest of the book.
Why would you try to apply so many of man's known physical laws and limitations to s Being that's supposed to be Supreme? Don't you see the irony of your argument? "God can't exist because we don't know how he does things?" Personally, if I'm going to have a Supreme Being, I don't want to think that he has off-days, isn't always paying attention or can't do the impossible. I know a personal and caring God, one who weeps at the frailties Man has brought upon himself. It sounds like you wan't a super-computer that simply works within its own limitations......why would you want a god with limitations? Besides.....it has been proven that the measurements and design given for the Ark are completely seaworthy. As a matter of fact, it's self-righting in case of near capsize.
I have an imagination and know enough about the universe to think a "supreme being" is extremely improbable. And when I can think of better ways to go about building things, then something that's supposed to be all-wise, all-knowing, and all-powerful should be able to come up with better projects than this.
I never said gods can't exist. I say that there's no way we can know that. There's a possibility that they do exist, but it's highly unlikely.
It doesn't matter what you want to think. If this god poofed everything, including itself, from nothing, it IS all-powerful considering that absolutely nothing can come from nothing. And if it is all-powerful and all-wise, then it shouldn't have made the immense error of allowing its creation to screw up in the first place. And certainly, even if it did screw up, it should find it extremely easy to mend the screwup. But instead it did screw up right from the introduction of Adam and Eve, and what's more. it keeps punishing humans for Adam and Eve's sins. Not a freakin thing has changed since then. And it should have seen all that coming if it actually WAS all-seeing and all-knowing. So it's pretty obvious to me and many others that this god, if it exists, HAS limitations.
What's more, if it was as loving and all that as you seem...
I have an imagination and know enough about the universe to think a "supreme being" is extremely improbable. And when I can think of better ways to go about building things, then something that's supposed to be all-wise, all-knowing, and all-powerful should be able to come up with better projects than this.
I never said gods can't exist. I say that there's no way we can know that. There's a possibility that they do exist, but it's highly unlikely.
It doesn't matter what you want to think. If this god poofed everything, including itself, from nothing, it IS all-powerful considering that absolutely nothing can come from nothing. And if it is all-powerful and all-wise, then it shouldn't have made the immense error of allowing its creation to screw up in the first place. And certainly, even if it did screw up, it should find it extremely easy to mend the screwup. But instead it did screw up right from the introduction of Adam and Eve, and what's more. it keeps punishing humans for Adam and Eve's sins. Not a freakin thing has changed since then. And it should have seen all that coming if it actually WAS all-seeing and all-knowing. So it's pretty obvious to me and many others that this god, if it exists, HAS limitations.
What's more, if it was as loving and all that as you seem to think, why are kids suffering from cancer, starvation, etc.? What did they do to deserve their lives of misery when all they ever did was to be born and be kids? What kind of love is that? Are everyone's sins that bad as to deserve death?
I agree that the ark was incredibly stable but that doesn't matter, it still couldn't hold 2 of each of the 1.7+ million species let alone including enough food for the 3.4+ million.
And as I said, there's not enough water on the entire planet to submerge the planet in water in the first place. And even if there was enough water, raining steadily for 40 days and 40 nights wouldn't do it.
But as I told Mariane, this is only one of the stories in the Bible that's full of holes. And only one story full of holes makes the credibility of the whole book pretty iffy.
He is mentioned in other religious texts, and if you watch the History channel, or National Geographic, they've had several documentaries based on evidence of his existence. He was a human being. It's not that unbelievable.
I agree, there may well have been a man by the name of Jesus. Much like there might have been a Buddha or a Muhammad. I was just stating that I have not been presented with evidence that he ever existed.
Well, there's a considerable amount of it. There isn't that much concrete evidence of Alexander the Great's existence either. I think it's just harder for people to believe in Jesus' existence because he's a religious figure.
No I have no problem believing that there was a person the myth was based on. But I would agree his significance to christianity may put some in an awkward position.
I don't care if you're religious or not... he's even mentioned in some Roman writings as well. The question I think the poll maker was intending was whether or not he was/is the son of God.
There are Greco-Roman pagan passages relevant to Christianity in the works of three major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions Christus, without many historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (c. AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[78][79] Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome." Charles Guignebert (Professor of the History Of Christianity at the Sorbonne), while rejecting the Jesus Myth theory and feeling that the Epistles of Paul were sufficient to prove the historical existence of Jesus, said "all the pagan and Jewish testimonies, so-called, afford us no information of any value about the life of Jesus, nor even any assurance that he ever lived.
![Accept - Metal Heart [Full Album]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003702865/5651702370_0_large.jpeg "Accept - Metal Heart [Full Album]")
The guy was supposed to have been a carpenter, so is theere a piece of furniture with a providence around anywhere?
It's pretty strange that items that have been proven to have belonged to people a lot older than 2000 years has survived and are in museuims, yet someone as famous as Jesus was supposed to be didn't leave a speck of evidence.
Just for the record, there was no such thing as an 'educated physician' at that time.
Besides, there are other references to Christ in secular literature of the same time period. You would think that in at least one of these, the author would have bothered with the traditional disclaimer..."Any resemblance to any person, living or dead, fact or fictional, is purely the result of the author trying to promote a dangerous and potentially lethal new version of how God works. Practising said religion could get you persecuted, imprisoned or killed. Have a nice day"
I also said it was speculation, because there's no direct and tangible, corroborating evidence backing up Jesus' existence
Jee, I knew a guy one time that I saw walking on water. Nevermind that I'd had a few nips at the Irish whiskey and I'm the only one that wrote about it.
Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. are the only ones that wrote about these spectacular events? Did anyone else scribble stuff down about the guy?
No corroborating eyewitness testimony or verifiable evidence makes the issue rather dubious.
And like I said, when people that lived and died in ages much earlier left artifacts and other remains as evidence of their existences and yet there's not a hair that can be verified as having belonged on Jesus' head considering he had hundreds and thousands of followers, it makes for lots of speculation as to the guy's existence. When experts are still arguing about the issue after 2 millennia, it adds even further doubt.
As Mark Twain once said, "“If it is a miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a fact, proof is necessary”. Religious people will believe the weirdest crap on the flimsiest of evidence.
The other critter that Christians worship, however, I'd avoid like the plague because it's an immature sociopath with very limited intelligence.
Either way. facts leave no room for doubt, but as there's very few facts concerning the existence of Jesus, there's much room for doubt. As you say you have no doubt that I'll meet him, you must have an abundance of facts that no-one else on the planet has ever discovered.
Since huge parts of the scriptures are parables, how do you know which ones are real and which ones are not. The entire bible is questionable as there are many stories that are said to be true that have been proven not to have happened.
Noah and his ark.
There are some 1.75 million known species of living things on Earth. There's no possible way that 2 of each could be loaded onto a boat that's only 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, let alone have room for food for them for 40 days. And remember this thing had to be stable in order to stay in one piece in turbulent conditions. That means it would have to contain support structures within it, which would use up even more room.
Besides that, there's not enough water on the planet to flood the planet so that everything is under 40 feet of water.
So, since the first book in the Bible has faerie tales like Noah and his ark in it, it kind of throws off the credibility of the rest of the book.
Besides.....it has been proven that the measurements and design given for the Ark are completely seaworthy. As a matter of fact, it's self-righting in case of near capsize.
I never said gods can't exist. I say that there's no way we can know that. There's a possibility that they do exist, but it's highly unlikely.
It doesn't matter what you want to think. If this god poofed everything, including itself, from nothing, it IS all-powerful considering that absolutely nothing can come from nothing. And if it is all-powerful and all-wise, then it shouldn't have made the immense error of allowing its creation to screw up in the first place. And certainly, even if it did screw up, it should find it extremely easy to mend the screwup. But instead it did screw up right from the introduction of Adam and Eve, and what's more. it keeps punishing humans for Adam and Eve's sins. Not a freakin thing has changed since then. And it should have seen all that coming if it actually WAS all-seeing and all-knowing. So it's pretty obvious to me and many others that this god, if it exists, HAS limitations.
What's more, if it was as loving and all that as you seem...
I never said gods can't exist. I say that there's no way we can know that. There's a possibility that they do exist, but it's highly unlikely.
It doesn't matter what you want to think. If this god poofed everything, including itself, from nothing, it IS all-powerful considering that absolutely nothing can come from nothing. And if it is all-powerful and all-wise, then it shouldn't have made the immense error of allowing its creation to screw up in the first place. And certainly, even if it did screw up, it should find it extremely easy to mend the screwup. But instead it did screw up right from the introduction of Adam and Eve, and what's more. it keeps punishing humans for Adam and Eve's sins. Not a freakin thing has changed since then. And it should have seen all that coming if it actually WAS all-seeing and all-knowing. So it's pretty obvious to me and many others that this god, if it exists, HAS limitations.
What's more, if it was as loving and all that as you seem to think, why are kids suffering from cancer, starvation, etc.? What did they do to deserve their lives of misery when all they ever did was to be born and be kids? What kind of love is that? Are everyone's sins that bad as to deserve death?
I agree that the ark was incredibly stable but that doesn't matter, it still couldn't hold 2 of each of the 1.7+ million species let alone including enough food for the 3.4+ million.
And as I said, there's not enough water on the entire planet to submerge the planet in water in the first place. And even if there was enough water, raining steadily for 40 days and 40 nights wouldn't do it.
But as I told Mariane, this is only one of the stories in the Bible that's full of holes. And only one story full of holes makes the credibility of the whole book pretty iffy.
one source i found been a while but i do remember reading some where about roman cesus's and other roman text from the age
Your link does not work and is incomplete.
His trial was not mentions and neither was his crucifixion.
There are Greco-Roman pagan passages relevant to Christianity in the works of three major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions Christus, without many historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (c. AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[78][79] Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."
Charles Guignebert (Professor of the History Of Christianity at the Sorbonne), while rejecting the Jesus Myth theory and feeling that the Epistles of Paul were sufficient to prove the historical existence of Jesus, said "all the pagan and Jewish testimonies, so-called, afford us no information of any value about the life of Jesus, nor even any assurance that he ever lived.