Typhoon struck pineapple land for a reason

[Frodo]

I say so because there really is nothing to show that he existed. No historical records. Written, inscribed, or excavated other than biblical quotes. Using "our" calendar only suggests that he lived around 6 A.D., again according to biblical gospels which were written couple of hundred years after that estimated date. Christianity was a movement and growing social phenomena that was destabilizing Roman rule at that time and Emperor Constantine did a political move to adopt Christianity as the official religion and enacted the Nicene Creed which became the accepted Christian dogma thereby averting a mass revolt by the increasing number of Christians. It was a political thing, which has been ingrained into the present day subconscious mind of most Christians who can't decide whether Christ was born on Dec 25 or Jan 7, but that is not important. Christmas Day is the day modern Christians commemorate the birth of their Lord and Saviour and its "accuracy" is no longer accepted as correct.

If you're looking for evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, you can start by proving he was executed by cruxifiction and start from there. If you can find the remains of the cross they nailed him to or the nails they used, that's a start, because there are some people who refute the story that he was crucified (and rose from the dead on Easter).

Cheers!

Really? Nothing to show at all that Jesus existed? It is by far easier to account for the existence of Christianity to a real person of history than to attribute it to a fictitious person. The odds are stacked against your claim that Jesus never existed. Bear in mind you made an absolute claim, which means you basically need to know all there is to know about the past to declare that there is no Jesus at all in history. How then do you treat the evidence that show Jesus existed? Just dismiss them and say they don't exist regardless? Do you go where the evidence leads or do you already decide way before hand there is no evidence to look at in the first place?

 

[Agoraphobic]

Yes. Nothing to show is right. Todate, there is no real hard evidence of his existence. The existence of Christianity is based on his persona, the story, and likely resistance to the unpopularity of Roman rule over the region. If there is today, evidence of his existence, at that time, and the events in his life (other than biblical accounts), what, or, where are they? He is probably the most talked about person in our human history, but so far, they're all theological. We live in a time where scientific evidence is what we accept as proof. Science has tried very hard to prove Jesus existed, but so far has been unable to.

Cheers!

Really? Nothing to show at all that Jesus existed? It is by far easier to account for the existence of Christianity to a real person of history than to attribute it to a fictitious person. The odds are stacked against your claim that Jesus never existed. Bear in mind you made an absolute claim, which means you basically need to know all there is to know about the past to declare that there is no Jesus at all in history. How then do you treat the evidence that show Jesus existed? Just dismiss them and say they don't exist regardless? Do you go where the evidence leads or do you already decide way before hand there is no evidence to look at in the first place?

 

[Frodo]

Yes. Nothing to show is right. Todate, there is no real hard evidence of his existence. The existence of Christianity is based on his persona, the story, and likely resistance to the unpopularity of Roman rule over the region. If there is today, evidence of his existence, at that time, and the events in his life (other than biblical accounts), what, or, where are they? He is probably the most talked about person in our human history, but so far, they're all theological. We live in a time where scientific evidence is what we accept as proof. Science has tried very hard to prove Jesus existed, but so far has been unable to.

Cheers!

How did science prove the existence of Julius Caesar, or any other person of antiquity?

 

[Agoraphobic]

There are historical records of kings, emperors, pharoahs in writings on scrolls, tablets, tombstones. So far, none for Jesus Christ. Caesar was more privileged, he probably had coins minted with his face on them.

Cheers!

How did science prove the existence of Julius Caesar, or any other person of antiquity?

 

[Frodo]

There are historical records of kings, emperors, pharoahs in writings on scrolls, tablets, tombstones. So far, none for Jesus Christ. Caesar was more privileged, he probably had coins minted with his face on them.

Cheers!

I thought you were going to talk about scientific evidence, so now you are talking about historical records and writings? FYI the Bible is a historical record too. To exclude it from consideration is hardly the intellectually honest thing to do. It speaks more of one's prejudice than one's objectivity in dealing with the evidence. BTW, there ARE extra-biblical records of Jesus. One must be really ignoring a lot of things to insist that there are no evidence for Jesus besides the Bible.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

BTW, since you take the view that minted coins with face of Julius Caesar is proof of his existence, then for you these should suffice to prove existence of Jesus http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=1023

 

[Agoraphobic]

Archaelogical records are scientific are they not? It is a branch of science. Unfortunately, the bible does not hold up as historical fact - at least not by the scientific community. They are at best mythical folklore (eg. the story of Adam and Eve.) I would regard the Old Testament as a story of Jewish origins (in their search for land) and the New Testament as a story of Jesus Christ depicting him as The Messiah. There is some archaeological evidence of Old Testament writings, but so far none of Jesus the messiah. We accept that the story of Jesus is the greatest story ever told, and it has influenced nations, kings, movements, and individuals to greatness, but the existence of that particular man in history is not proven. In fact, it is shown to be based on earlier myths from the region. I personally suspect such a person may have lived during that time and the stories probably revolved around that person, but to perform the miracles described in the gospels, rise from the dead and all that is stretching it a bit too far. If that person did walk the earth, he is more likely a teacher/wise person who was rebellious against the Roman and led local tribes to refuse payment of taxes to them; in other words, a rebel-rouser and not the divine being preached by the gospels. That is more likely the true Jesus. The stories put together by the gospels much later served to glorify and enlarge that person.

Cheers!

I thought you were going to talk about scientific evidence, so now you are talking about historical records and writings? FYI the Bible is a historical record too. To exclude it from consideration is hardly the intellectually honest thing to do. It speaks more of one's prejudice than one's objectivity in dealing with the evidence. BTW, there ARE extra-biblical records of Jesus. One must be really ignoring a lot of things to insist that there are no evidence for Jesus besides the Bible.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

BTW, since you take the view that minted coins with face of Julius Caesar is proof of his existence, then for you these should suffice to prove existence of Jesus http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=1023

 

[Agoraphobic]

These depictions were done to commemorate Jesus Christ. To honour his accepted status. They were minted many many years after his supposed crucifixion. Those minted with Caesar's face were made when he was the emperor. Sorry, I see you are trying hard, but there is still no bona fide evidence today. His existence is held in faith. I am sure you know what that means. Devout Christians and believers do not need history to convince them that Jesus existed.

Cheers!

BTW, since you take the view that minted coins with face of Julius Caesar is proof of his existence, then for you these should suffice to prove existence of Jesus http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=1023

 

[Agoraphobic]

Hi Frodo:

I spent the last few minutes for lunch browsing the net to help you in your quest to find proof for Jesus' existence. The following places in a nutshell efforts over the last few centuries:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ

From RationalWikiEvidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100 CE) to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.
Historians focusing on this era generally accept that there was likely an individual named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is no evidence over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. A small minority, past[1] and present[2] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories, representing an extreme in the other end of belief.

 

[Frodo]

Archaelogical records are scientific are they not? It is a branch of science. Unfortunately, the bible does not hold up as historical fact - at least not by the scientific community. They are at best mythical folklore (eg. the story of Adam and Eve.) I would regard the Old Testament as a story of Jewish origins (in their search for land) and the New Testament as a story of Jesus Christ depicting him as The Messiah. There is some archaeological evidence of Old Testament writings, but so far none of Jesus the messiah. We accept that the story of Jesus is the greatest story ever told, and it has influenced nations, kings, movements, and individuals to greatness, but the existence of that particular man in history is not proven. In fact, it is shown to be based on earlier myths from the region. I personally suspect such a person may have lived during that time and the stories probably revolved around that person, but to perform the miracles described in the gospels, rise from the dead and all that is stretching it a bit too far. If that person did walk the earth, he is more likely a teacher/wise person who was rebellious against the Roman and led local tribes to refuse payment of taxes to them; in other words, a rebel-rouser and not the divine being preached by the gospels. That is more likely the true Jesus. The stories put together by the gospels much later served to glorify and enlarge that person.

Cheers!

Question is, does your adhoc just so explanation adequately explains the facts? Nope it doesn't.

 

[Frodo]

Hi Frodo:

I spent the last few minutes for lunch browsing the net to help you in your quest to find proof for Jesus' existence. The following places in a nutshell efforts over the last few centuries:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ

From RationalWikiEvidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100 CE) to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.
Historians focusing on this era generally accept that there was likely an individual named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is no evidence over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. A small minority, past[1] and present[2] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories, representing an extreme in the other end of belief.

To say that there are no secular references to Jesus during the first century means Jesus never existed? And are you sure that references to Jesus are only from Bible, early fathers, and other church writings? You are ignoring a heap of evidences staring at you.

http://stormhighway.com/blog2012/march812a.php

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, I myself am eagerly awaiting for proof from non-Christian sources that aren't personal views. If you have any, I'd be very interested to know. As I've said, todate, we still do not have any non-biased source of proof. I've mentioned that it is possible a man we refer to Jesus MAY HAVE existed at that time, but the events leading to support him as the "Son of God" with supernatural powers are so far only stories.

Cheers!

To say that there are no secular references to Jesus during the first century means Jesus never existed? And are you sure that references to Jesus are only from Bible, early fathers, and other church writings? You are ignoring a heap of evidences staring at you.

http://stormhighway.com/blog2012/march812a.php

 

[Frodo]

Fren, I myself am eagerly awaiting for proof from non-Christian sources that aren't personal views. If you have any, I'd be very interested to know. As I've said, todate, we still do not have any non-biased source of proof. I've mentioned that it is possible a man we refer to Jesus MAY HAVE existed at that time, but the events leading to support him as the "Son of God" with supernatural powers are so far only stories.

Cheers!

How does an impersonal view look like????

 

[Agoraphobic]

To begin with, it should not be the opinion or statement of a person(s). I am not saying that views should be disregarded, they aren't that credible, that's all. For something that happened in the past, best is of course recorded history, or relics. Nowadays, we have developed carbon dating methods, different kinds of spectroscopy, microscopes, blah blah...... Even though the views of scholar are listened to, it is still only their opinions, no matter how scholarly they are. For instance, if a recognised primatologist went to the Rockies and said he saw Bigfoot, that is only his/her view, and not evidence that the hominid exists. Fren, for you and me, it does not matter whether Jesus of Nazareth ever lived the life depicted in the gospels, just living in his teachings is fulfilling enough. I do not wish to argue with those who choose to belief in God, because it is their choice and right to believe.

Cheers!

How does an impersonal view look like????

 

[Frodo]

To begin with, it should not be the opinion or statement of a person(s). I am not saying that views should be disregarded, they aren't that credible, that's all. For something that happened in the past, best is of course recorded history, or relics. Nowadays, we have developed carbon dating methods, different kinds of spectroscopy, microscopes, blah blah...... Even though the views of scholar are listened to, it is still only their opinions, no matter how scholarly they are. For instance, if a recognised primatologist went to the Rockies and said he saw Bigfoot, that is only his/her view, and not evidence that the hominid exists. Fren, for you and me, it does not matter whether Jesus of Nazareth ever lived the life depicted in the gospels, just living in his teachings is fulfilling enough. I do not wish to argue with those who choose to belief in God, because it is their choice and right to believe.

Cheers!

All statements made by people are by definition personal, even if it is summed up and consented to in a statement. Views are views, they are not by default credible or not credible in any inherent sense. It may not matter to you whether Jesus existed but to me it matters big time!

 

[Agoraphobic]

Yes. Views are views, but in the society we live in, it does matter somewhat who says what. For example in Sg, if Lau Lee says something, you can bet there will be people who will take it as true ande wise, no matter what it is. Anyways, that is another subject.

As mentioned earlier, I am always on the lookout for updates with regards to news on Jesus Christ and until such time when undisputable proof emerges, I will have to accept the current status of things. BTW, what in your opinion will be the impact on society should the story of Jesus be proven to have actually happened as described by the four gospels in the New Testament? Will there be any significant changes to the way society behaves in our capitalistic world?

Cheers!

All statements made by people are by definition personal, even if it is summed up and consented to in a statement. Views are views, they are not by default credible or not credible in any inherent sense. It may not matter to you whether Jesus existed but to me it matters big time!

 

[Frodo]

Yes. Views are views, but in the society we live in, it does matter somewhat who says what. For example in Sg, if Lau Lee says something, you can bet there will be people who will take it as true ande wise, no matter what it is. Anyways, that is another subject.

As mentioned earlier, I am always on the lookout for updates with regards to news on Jesus Christ and until such time when undisputable proof emerges, I will have to accept the current status of things. BTW, what in your opinion will be the impact on society should the story of Jesus be proven to have actually happened as described by the four gospels in the New Testament? Will there be any significant changes to the way society behaves in our capitalistic world?

Cheers!

What do you mean by undisputed proofs? Argumentative people will always find something to dispute. But I believe the fact of Jesus' existence is not disputed by most scholars of history. Regarding your question, human nature being what they are, my answer is no. The Bible says people love the darkness more than light.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Historical records other than biblical, which are canonical literature. Sir, believe me, I myself am searching for such evidence and so far, the story of Jesus is just a story even though there are dozens of movies, plays, stage acts of it, retold many times over in different languages. Coming back to the bible, what do you call The Revelation in the new testament? History? Prediction? Prophecy? Or a story like the rest of the book?

Cheers!

What do you mean by undisputed proofs? Argumentative people will always find something to dispute. But I believe the fact of Jesus' existence is not disputed by most scholars of history. Regarding your question, human nature being what they are, my answer is no. The Bible says people love the darkness more than light.

 

[Frodo]

Historical records other than biblical, which are canonical literature. Sir, believe me, I myself am searching for such evidence and so far, the story of Jesus is just a story even though there are dozens of movies, plays, stage acts of it, retold many times over in different languages. Coming back to the bible, what do you call The Revelation in the new testament? History? Prediction? Prophecy? Or a story like the rest of the book?

Cheers!

As mentioned, the Bible itself is a historical document/evidence in its own right. To deny it that proper status is hardly objective investigative research in my view. Besides, there ARE other non-Biblical references to Jesus as mentioned.

Question is, if you are going to only accept evidences from only non-Christian sources, how objective is that again? It's like saying you only trust the reports of the Holocaust from non-Jews. If you want good info you usually get it from those who are intimate with the source and better still were eyewitnesses or close associates, but in this case you say "please, no Christian reporting about Jesus allowed because you are too intimate with the source." That to me is a big

 

[Agoraphobic]

Fren, I've mentioned earlier, the Bible is canonical literature - stuff put out by the Church to support itself. And there are no sources of evidence of Jesus Christ from non-Christian sources, so far. If there are, please point me in that direction.

Jewish concentration camps existed as testified by many US soldiers in Germany at the end of WW2. and Jews weren't the only ones kept in there. Russians, Polish, and others were kept in there too, anyone whom the Nazis identified as their enemies. Some Jewish inmates are still alive today I think. Too bad for all of us that the events in the story of Jesus took place so long ago, there are no survivors alive to testify about him and we will need some kind of archaeological evidence or other physical artefact to show for his existence (perhaps the chalice at the Last Supper). And until something like that unfolds the past, his existence and life can only be held in faith. I am not going to challenge you or anyone who has faith, it is a personal thing, but I myself base my own beliefs on things we can see. Like fossils of dinosaurs. Other things, will be greyish and obscure, like the yeti and sasquatch - which still need physical proof despite people claiming to have seen them.

Cheers!

As mentioned, the Bible itself is a historical document/evidence in its own right. To deny it that proper status is hardly objective investigative research in my view. Besides, there ARE other non-Biblical references to Jesus as mentioned.

Question is, if you are going to only accept evidences from only non-Christian sources, how objective is that again? It's like saying you only trust the reports of the Holocaust from non-Jews. If you want good info you usually get it from those who are intimate with the source and better still were eyewitnesses or close associates, but in this case you say "please, no Christian reporting about Jesus allowed because you are too intimate with the source." That to me is a big

 

[Frodo]

Fren, I've mentioned earlier, the Bible is canonical literature - stuff put out by the Church to support itself. And there are no sources of evidence of Jesus Christ from non-Christian sources, so far. If there are, please point me in that direction.

Jewish concentration camps existed as testified by many US soldiers in Germany at the end of WW2. and Jews weren't the only ones kept in there. Russians, Polish, and others were kept in there too, anyone whom the Nazis identified as their enemies. Some Jewish inmates are still alive today I think. Too bad for all of us that the events in the story of Jesus took place so long ago, there are no survivors alive to testify about him and we will need some kind of archaeological evidence or other physical artefact to show for his existence (perhaps the chalice at the Last Supper). And until something like that unfolds the past, his existence and life can only be held in faith. I am not going to challenge you or anyone who has faith, it is a personal thing, but I myself base my own beliefs on things we can see. Like fossils of dinosaurs. Other things, will be greyish and obscure, like the yeti and sasquatch - which still need physical proof despite people claiming to have seen them.

Cheers!

Firstly, as mentioned before, there is no good reason to exclude the Bible as a historical document in its own right and merit. I can only attribute it to your sheer bias and prejudice if you do so. And that's hardly being objective.

Secondly, I already pointed out the non-Christian sources. But I suppose you are going to dismiss them because these are compiled by Christians? Hope not.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMN...dence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historicaljesus/historicaljesus.htm

Regarding the Holocaust, the issue is not whether it happened within the lifetimes of those who are still alive today. Even now we have people denying it happened. 1000 years later would it be denied? Sure, but the objective truth is that it happened, even if 1000 years from now everyone on earth said it never happened, or every shred of evidence from it has been removed from the face of the earth. That's the nature of truth, it doesn't depend on what you believe or feel about it. Our five senses are generally reliable, but there are things beyond our five senses. When it comes to matters of history, it's about historical evidence and artefacts and documents.