I am really sorry if this has been posted before.


If you knew me in person, you would know I love getting into discussions with people about religion. One of the questions that seems to keep coming into the discussion loop is Jesus.


So I was at a social gathering the other night at a restaurant and I dropped my silverware and out of habit I said "Jesus Christ!" And a random girl that was a friend of a friend said, "Don't use the Lords name in vain."


So obviously we got into a debate.


I brought up the point in the discussion that Jesus never existed. Well everyone looked at me like i was off the wall insane...


At that point the discussion just turned into incoherent ramblings and Grrrr... So frustrating that people base their whole life on hearsay! Simply dumbfounding!!!


Help me feel better... seriously.

Views: 429

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You don't need a vote to settle once and far all whether or not Jesus existed. That's not how it works. You examine all the evidence and then you decide whether or not he actually existed or whether or not there is enough proof to actually determine if he existed. The proof of the existence of a man can be lost in thousands of years. That doesn't mean that he never existed, it only means that we can't know for sure until and if that evidence is found.


I think some people, myself included, deny the existance of the son of god here on Earth; but I'm not saying that Jesus never existed. The original question of this discussion wasn't whether or not a son of a god ever lived on earth, but whether or not Jesus, the one that founded christianity ever existed. My answers for these questions are no for the former and yes for the latter.

Sophie, I think you should clarify what you had in mind when you asked the question. Did you asked people whether or not they think that the son of god ever existed, or whether or not they think Jesus, the guy that founded christianity ever existed? I think people get confused by the question, or just answer the 'son of god' part.

I know exactly how you feel.  I live in the "Bible Belt" and I get EXTREMELY frustrated on a daily basis because I get the same feedback.  I only have like 4 or 5 close friends that are atheist and the rest are "Christian" because they go to church 2 times a year.


Same thing happened to me just the other day.  I had a co-worker tell me that she had to delete me from Facebook because of my blasphemy and anti religious rhetoric.  The thing that she was talking about was when I posted, "It's colder than God's heart during the holocaust out side!!".  This really sent her into a rage on my face book and she told me it was time for me to be deleted.  She confronted me in the hallway and told me that I should not hate Jesus....I simply told her that you can not hate something that doesn't exist! 


Anyway, like most have said there is no historical evidence that he existed at all.  Keep on truckin!

The Jesus story is obviously cobbled together, but why include all those discrepancies if you are just making it up.  If you are making it up, you could make it perfect.  Occam's razor, folks.  The simplest explanation is that there was a person who was deified by his followers.



Occam's razor is a well known principle of logic.  What it means is that the simpler explanation is more likely to be true.  Later information may prove otherwise, but that is so unlikely that it is generally taken as a near certainty that the simpler is true--especially when it is much simpler.
I thik He has been invented by the roman imperators. In Palestine, the holy land of Jesus, nobody believe in him, the people are muslims or jewish still waiting for the lord

There is no historical evidence that prooves that Jesus even existed, but, Jesus taken seriously by many ppl,,,Muhammad was one of those who took Jesus seriously without any prooves...



Most new testament scholars believe there was at the very least a man named Jesus (Jeshua) who was a Jew and went around preaching his version of the scripture.  


I have studied the arguments fairly in depth and most of it revolves around hear say.  Most of the acts attributed to him could be seen as a wise man of sorts who went around to help people and make them feel better based off his words.  


When you compare the Gospel accounts side by side , the stories are just so different , not much can be reliable.  When you compare the teachings of Paul , or what Paul suggests we do to live by Gods word etc ... it has NOTHING to do with anything Jesus said in the Gospels.  


So a man existed who walked around and preached and this man probably got crucified and probably had a small following just like cults today have ... but nothing much other than can be agreed upon.  


But yeah.  Who cares if Socrates existed?  The words ascribed to an imaginary man named Socrates still have tremendous value even if the man never existed.  The meaning and the words are what is important.  


All one can say for certain is that the historicity of Jesus is very limited based off various sources which are not compatible in hearsay or details.  But he probably existed as a person.  

Fools! Jesus existed. He is me. I am him. My words are clear.
Then who is the Holy Spirit?  And did you rape Mary or just seduce her :P

Non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact there were many more citizens than history writers that therefore we should expect to be no written evidence of a historical Jesus.

Tacitus in Histories had nothing more to say about Jesus's time as: "Under Tiberius all was quiet." (sentence 10.)

Then in the later Annals (15:44) an account: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" (9th sentence.)

This passage is thought to be a 15th century forgery. Though Tacitus was extensively quoted by Church polemicists and historians nothing of this is quoted or mentioned in any pre-15th century writing. In this case the purpose might have been different than to fake evidence for a historical Jesus, the context suggests other priorities. (Nero's persecutions.)

I want to make a note of it that we are now in the strange situation that those who deny the existence of a historical Jesus are put in the position to prove a negative while those who maintain there was are satisfied merely with making up excuses why there shouldn't be any evidence in order to then conclude from that, that it is unreasonable to deny the existence of a historical Jesus. This seems to me to be a reversal of the normal course of action and the proper way to do things. Just sayin'

If it is true that the Romans kept good records, you are only further undermining your case, there being no evidence while there should.

If there is then please don't wait any longer and let me see it, so I can change my mind.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service