...

[Paroxysm]

Well honestly the first one is easy enough to prove.

How so?


We have no written texts that can be attributed to him, most of the gospels were written well past his supposed death.

[Mouzie]

How so?


We have no written texts that can be attributed to him, most of the gospels were written well past his supposed death.

Well, I believed that Jesus is a real person, but I don't believe that he was doing miracle things. I think he did something and people did something to make him sound GODLY AND AWESOME.. can't think of that word.

Anyways.. love your avatar, made me happy.

[Empire]

How so?


We have no written texts that can be attributed to him, most of the gospels were written well past his supposed death.

Well hate to say it, but for the sake of a person existing, just in and of itself, written documents are pretty much all you need.

:/ not like we would know about other stuff without written text telling of adventures.

Kinda like stories of great hero's, the man existed, but how great he was, well thats all just legend.

[Paroxysm]

Well hate to say it, but for the sake of a person existing, just in and of itself, written documents are pretty much all you need.

:/ not like we would know about other stuff without written text telling of adventures.

Kinda like stories of great hero's, the man existed, but how great he was, well thats all just legend.

That's where I would disagree, once you have an individual who was claimed to have performed amazing feats such as those of Jesus or other Earth-Deities the probability of that person actually existing go down significantly. Especially if the texts you base his existence on were mostly written well past his life or the lives of his supposed followers. When it comes to verifying were a person actually existed the validity becomes more of a spectrum than a clear defining line between "Didn't exist" or "Did exist". The moring contemporary writings there are about the said individual, the more likely they are to have existed. Or if the individual in question wrote information that can be directly tied to him the chances go up significantly. However when it comes to the Jesus Christ the contemporary texts are scant even when present. Most of the scholarly writings of the time that refereed to Jesus refer to the Christian's beliefs about their savior Jesus explicitly.

[Empire]

That's where I would disagree, once you have an individual who was claimed to have performed amazing feats such as those of Jesus or other Earth-Deities the probability of that person actually existing go down significantly. Especially if the texts you base his existence on were mostly written well past his life or the lives of his supposed followers. When it comes to verifying were a person actually existed the validity becomes more of a spectrum than a clear defining line between "Didn't exist" or "Did exist". The moring contemporary writings there are about the said individual, the more likely they are to have existed. Or if the individual in question wrote information that can be directly tied to him the chances go up significantly. However when it comes to the Jesus Christ the contemporary texts are scant even when present. Most of the scholarly writings of the time that refereed to Jesus refer to the Christian's beliefs about their savior Jesus explicitly.

Well the same could be said of most hero's of war, or even great leaders in general.
-Talking about old days. not now.

:/ The bible even put the genealogy of Jesus in there. Although not entirely sure if its right, its as true as any other.

[Paroxysm]

Well the same could be said of most hero's of war, or even great leaders in general.
-Talking about old days. not now.

:/ The bible even put the genealogy of Jesus in there. Although not entirely sure if its right, its as true as any other.

Most war hero's had letters, or contemporary documents listing service. We're still talking about old days.

Here's a short wiki on the genealogy of Jesus and the discrepancies between the gospels.
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Empire]

?_? Paroxysm this debate is pointless really.

Jesus more than likely existed. Not saying he did what the bible said, but he existed.

Finding arbitrary documents just to prove he did exist isn't my task here, nor should it be anyone else's.

[Paroxysm]

?_? Paroxysm this debate is pointless really.

Jesus more than likely existed. Not saying he did what the bible said, but he existed.

Finding arbitrary documents just to prove he did exist isn't my task here, nor should it be anyone else's.

Assuming he did exist solely for the purpose of mental masturbation isn't my task here.

[Empire]

Assuming he did exist solely for the purpose of mental masturbation isn't my task here.

:/ having a guy named jesus existing at that time period isn't a loss for atheism bro, chill out.

[Paroxysm]

:/ having a guy named jesus existing at that time period isn't a loss for atheism bro, chill out.

I'm not incredibly concerned about whether a Jesus existed or not, would not be incredibly surprised if there was however it is a fairly big step to assume he must have.

[Alen]

I'm not incredibly concerned about whether a Jesus existed or not, would not be incredibly surprised if there was however it is a fairly big step to assume he must have.

Well if you strip away all his supernatural deeds and religious teachings you're left with a man named Yeshua / Christus or whatever he was called in the Roman times by the different ethnicities who promoted Christianity and was later tried and killed my the Romans.

So chances are at least a "role model" existed upon which the figurehead of those times' Christianity was based. Imagine that 2000 years from now a new religion sprouts with Aleks the Atheistic playing the role of an important figure comes into existence. He's described as an atheistic Russian who likes Reddit.

How many Russian Aleks/Aleksandr/Alexanders or whatever do you know that have visited Reddit? I be more than just a few

And coupled with some supposedly verified written evidence of his existence, I wouldn't really say I believe he existed, but I believe there's a greater chance a "role model" for his figure existed than not.

[Paroxysm]

Well if you strip away all his supernatural deeds and religious teachings you're left with a man named Yeshua / Christus or whatever he was called in the Roman times by the different ethnicities who promoted Christianity and was later tried and killed my the Romans.

So chances are at least a "role model" existed upon which the figurehead of those times' Christianity was based. Imagine that 2000 years from now a new religion sprouts with Aleks the Atheistic playing the role of an important figure comes into existence. He's described as an atheistic Russian who likes Reddit.

How many Russian Aleks/Aleksandr/Alexanders or whatever do you know that have visited Reddit? I be more than just a few

And coupled with some supposedly verified written evidence of his existence, I wouldn't really say I believe he existed, but I believe there's a greater chance a "role model" for his figure existed than not.

Again I have no major qualms with a Christ-like character being around in the 1st Century. My issue is with people talking about this matter on the basis that some supposed credible documents exist, none of which are mentioned by name here and when they are mentioned by name in formal debates I've seen they are either discredited, not contemporary or entirely unsubstantiated. For the sake of argument I could say he existed but until we see further evidence in his favor for existence I'm not comfortable making claims either way about his existence.

We know there were plenty of Savior-claims in the First Century any of which could have been this Jesus fella. I'm heading out to church in a minute but afterwards I'll dig through some repos, see if I can compile some of these supposed documents.

[barklolbark]

There is no proof that either existe(d), so I believe in neither.

[Mouzie]

There is no proof that either existe(d), so I believe in neither.

Where is your proof that none existed? See your own stupidity into trying to make a point.

[barklolbark]

Where is your proof that none existed? See your own stupidity into trying to make a point.

That was a completely illogical comment. The burden of proof is in your hands.