Did Jesus of Nazareth Actually Exist?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-28 12:10am

It's pretty clear to me that if he ever actually did exist then they combined his story with existing legends and myths from MANY other sources from other religions in order to create the figure we know today as Jesus.

Shrykull · Post by **Shrykull** » 2002-09-28 11:39pm

I recently read a site where a guy in Italy claims to have proven Jesus never existed. I'll try to find it again.

In my opinion, there's just no independant evidence. For a person who suposidly rasied such a stink the Romans never wrote of him during his life time. Personally, I think the myth of Jesus is a composition of many people. One of them might have been named Jesus, but that's all.

Some guy's website I saw said that saying that Jesus never existed would be like saying Hannibal never existed, since Carthage and it's records were destroyed (the ruins are still there aren't they?) and so was Rome, but not all Roman records were destroyed, nor was Hannibal believed to be a god, there's nothing in historical context about Jesus, from a casual observer saying something like "Hey, I went out with Jesus today, we had Coffee" [/quote]

Raziel · Post by **Raziel** » 2002-09-29 12:13am

Fun Fact: the name Jesus derives from the Greek (the actual Greek slips my mind, unfortunately) for "Greater than Zeus".

Now how many ARAMAIC JEWS would be running around with a name like that back then?

Way I see it, if he was real then the Jesus legend (and that's just what it is) was either pinned on a man who tried to reform the local religion or an amalgamation of many men who claimed to be the Messiah.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-09-29 12:43am

Not many. Read all the poster and you will see that many people pointed out his name was not Jesus and that was the name the greek translations - because first christians to step out the hebrews - are greek and translated the names to Greek. Or do you think there was really a John there ?

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-09-30 01:24am

If someone could explain what they find so mythical about Jesus, It'd be great.IF you could explain why you don't think he wa the son of God, that'd be cool too.Just for discussion.

Raziel · Post by **Raziel** » 2002-09-30 02:00am

Well, Priesto, there are those of us who like to measure facts by logical merit and evidence, rather than faith in a tome of myths and legends from a warlike desert tribe. As others have mentioned, there is NO COMTEMPERORY MENTION of the 'Jesus' character described in the bible. Even the Romans, who kept fairly accurate records, made no mention of a man who could walk on water or raise the dead (and believe me, a man with such powers WOULD have attracted attention).

Enter the fact that the name 'Jesus' is GREEK... not many guys with Greek names in the area. Funny, considering it was the Greeks who first translated the old Hebrew texts (How many Johns and Pauls would there have been around the area, as a further example?). Why would the name of such a great, holy man be so mutable? Smells fishy to me.

Now, I'm going to present two modern-day scenarios and I'm going to ask which is more plausible.
1. Some guy claims to be the Messiah. Some people claim have witnessed him doing things like converting water to wine and curing cancer with a touch of the hands. The authorities become interested, because this man is getting quite a following. After some investigation, it becomes evident that his powers are quite real; they take him to a hospital ward and he cures all of the terminal patients with a touch (this is medically verified), he makes a water fountain produce wine, etc etc. He really is the Messiah, the son of God, against all logical possibility.
2. The story is the same as above, only when the authorities investigate he is found to be a fraud (big surprise); his 'witnesses' are plants, either good friends or well-paid bystanders. His miracles are little more than sleight-of-hand and clever illusions. He is, essentially, a charismatic con-artist.

If your IQ is higher than the number of digits on your right hand then you picked option #2. Now, moving this scenario back 2000 years, is it any less plausible? No. In fact, it is FAR MORE PLAUSIBLE back then (in that area especially), because there were countless guys claiming to be the Messiah. Every second week or so another guy popped up claiming that he was the Messiah as promised by scripture.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-09-30 02:26am

Raziel wrote:Well, Priesto, there are those of us who like to measure facts by logical merit and evidence, rather than faith in a tome of myths and legends from a warlike desert tribe. As others have mentioned, there is NO COMTEMPERORY MENTION of the 'Jesus' character described in the bible. Even the Romans, who kept fairly accurate records, made no mention of a man who could walk on water or raise the dead (and believe me, a man with such powers WOULD have attracted attention).

Enter the fact that the name 'Jesus' is GREEK... not many guys with Greek names in the area. Funny, considering it was the Greeks who first translated the old Hebrew texts (How many Johns and Pauls would there have been around the area, as a further example?). Why would the name of such a great, holy man be so mutable? Smells fishy to me.

Now, I'm going to present two modern-day scenarios and I'm going to ask which is more plausible.
1. Some guy claims to be the Messiah. Some people claim have witnessed him doing things like converting water to wine and curing cancer with a touch of the hands. The authorities become interested, because this man is getting quite a following. After some investigation, it becomes evident that his powers are quite real; they take him to a hospital ward and he cures all of the terminal patients with a touch (this is medically verified), he makes a water fountain produce wine, etc etc. He really is the Messiah, the son of God, against all logical possibility.
2. The story is the same as above, only when the authorities investigate he is found to be a fraud (big surprise); his 'witnesses' are plants, either good friends or well-paid bystanders. His miracles are little more than sleight-of-hand and clever illusions. He is, essentially, a charismatic con-artist.

If your IQ is higher than the number of digits on your right hand then you picked option #2. Now, moving this scenario back 2000 years, is it any less plausible? No. In fact, it is FAR MORE PLAUSIBLE back then (in that area especially), because there were countless guys claiming to be the Messiah. Every second week or so another guy popped up claiming that he was the Messiah as promised by scripture.

Why would the greek record Jesus death, if he was only seen as a jew? They didn't see Jesus do these great things, so it was of no concern to them.Plus, jesus had a great following.Your belief that a few guys would want to trick people into believing he was the messiiah is invalid.If that were so, they would have have taken advantage and would've taken down the government making Jesus king.That IS what the people wanted, but Jesus and the disciples obviously were not doing that.
Yes Jesus name in hebrew is yeshua which is in the original text of ancient bibles, hence it being in Hebrew.Me knowing the power that is in the name of Jesus negates that anyways.
Though there were others claiming to be the messiah, people were not so easily decieved as you would like to make it appear. You presume that people were idiots then and that we are supererior in todays world.But that is the exact opposite.People were smarter then, because things were more spiritual.Nowadays, people are more unaware of the things that go on around them.You didn't have to see something physically to know there was something wrong.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-09-30 02:39am

Raziel, if you like to follow logical method and evidence then why you insist with this thing about Greek name. Jesus is how we call this person. Not how he was called. It is an translation of the early texts to Greek. He had a average and normal hebrish name...
Plus, you like evidence but you tell a history about an man who lured people. Do you notice that to him to lure people there would have been records as well ? If he was a big cheat or real, the romans would have him in the records, because his cheats worked!
Now, if you care to read the books about jesus you will see that as long the texts are more distant from Jesus, more divinity he gets. Its clear that people after him founded a myth, not the person living it made such claims.

Raziel · Post by **Raziel** » 2002-09-30 03:03am

Why would the greek record Jesus death, if he was only seen as a jew? They didn't see Jesus do these great things, so it was of no concern to them.

I never said any such thing. I said WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING THE HEBREW SCRIPTURE, because they were the first Westerners to translate the Christian texts. I could have made that more clear, I suppose.

Plus, jesus had a great following.Your belief that a few guys would want to trick people into believing he was the messiiah is invalid.

Martha Stewart and George dubya have 'great followings' too. That doesn't validate their existence. And why is it invalid for me to believe that 'a few guys' would want to trick people? It happens all the time, and it happened (past tense) all the time.
Oh wait, it's invalid because it challenges your indoctrinated beliefs, right? Pardon me.

If that were so, they would have have taken advantage and would've taken down the government making Jesus king.That IS what the people wanted, but Jesus and the disciples obviously were not doing that.

Proof, please? How do we know what the people wanted? The bible doesn't count, I want a contemporary, secular source. Then there's the fact that the area was a ROMAN province. Only a complete idiot would have tried a stunt like that with a Roman garrison in the area. If anybody was looking for power they would have gone for it through religion, not politics.

Yes Jesus name in hebrew is yeshua which is in the original text of ancient bibles, hence it being in Hebrew.Me knowing the power that is in the name of Jesus negates that anyways.

I've read this through a few times and all it's done is melt my brain. What's the point of the first sentence? Yes the original texts were in Hebrew. Good for you.
And what does your 'knowing' (

) the power of Jesus name do, other than confirm the fact that you're a slavering fundamentalist? You'll excuse me if I reject this as an arguement, because it deals with early childhood indoctrination rather than concrete fact. The fact that I fail to understand the part it plays in your arguement furthers this.

Though there were others claiming to be the messiah, people were not so easily decieved as you would like to make it appear. You presume that people were idiots then and that we are supererior in todays world.

Would you please tell me where, exactly, I said people were more easily deceived in those days? I make no such statements, nor any about our superiority (ingrates such as yourself are a perfect example of why I'd be wrong if I'd said that). Perhaps if you bothered to READ what I'd written rather than skim it than knee-jerk a post at me... but in any event, I'll try to make it as clear as possible.
What I was saying is that the scenario of the fake Messiah is far more likely in those days BECAUSE of the fact that there were countless people claiming to be the Messiah. Every week a new one was popping up, some more convincing than others. I was saying the time was RIPE, not that people were any more stupid then they are today.

But that is the exact opposite.People were smarter then, because things were more spiritual.Nowadays, people are more unaware of the things that go on around them.You didn't have to see something physically to know there was something wrong.

How does believing in magic and spirits and demons make me smarter? All it does is make me a fearful, superstitious twit. If I believe in such things then yes, I don't have to see anything to know something is wrong. What, my crops have failed? Someone must of cast the evil eye over them, or maybe my daughter had sex before I married her off and God is displeased.

I seriously hope people like you are a distinct minority, Priesto. I shudder to think that there are many who are as ignorant and stupid as yourself wantonly spreading their genetics and raising another generation of good little Christians to continue the tradition of idiocy.

Raziel · Post by **Raziel** » 2002-09-30 03:19am

lgot wrote:Raziel, if you like to follow logical method and evidence then why you insist with this thing about Greek name. Jesus is how we call this person. Not how he was called. It is an translation of the early texts to Greek. He had a average and normal hebrish name...
Plus, you like evidence but you tell a history about an man who lured people. Do you notice that to him to lure people there would have been records as well ? If he was a big cheat or real, the romans would have him in the records, because his cheats worked!
Now, if you care to read the books about jesus you will see that as long the texts are more distant from Jesus, more divinity he gets. Its clear that people after him founded a myth, not the person living it made such claims.

Allow me to elaborate...

My fictional scenarios were just that, fictional. They were for the purpose of illustration, not as an allegorical example of what 'Jesus' did 2000 years ago. I agree, a con-man that successful would have been noticed by the Romans. I find it far more likely that the 'Jesus' character was in fact based upon the exploits of a number of different men.

My apologies for not being clear... it's late and my brain is impaired.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-09-30 08:57am

Priesto wrote:Why would the greek record Jesus death, if he was only seen as a jew?

If you by 'the greek' mean 'the romans' then they did have extensive records of 'troublemakers' in their different regions. Albeit the records have through the centuries become more and more incomplete.

Priesto wrote:Plus, jesus had a great following.

Not until after his death. If you read the bible again you will notice that he draws local crowds when he visits but not many actually follow him. This changes after his death (and resurrection of you wish) when the disciples creates a smaller society.
John 18:30-40 (The people choose Barabbas before JC.)
John 19:25 (There was not a large following when he was crucified).

Priesto wrote:Your belief that a few guys would want to trick people into believing he was the messiiah is invalid.
If that were so, they would have have taken advantage and would've taken down the government making Jesus king.

You are forgetting that it is the roman empire we are talking about? If JC was made into King of Galilei his reign would have been short indeed. Plus the priesthood had certain powers under Roman law, influence they would loose if a rebel would come to power, so not only would rebels have to fight the roman army but also the Galilei priesthood which means the majority of the people. The people who gathered when Pilatus gave his verdict would rather free a thief than JC, that is how large a following he had among the people at the time.
(Also it is rude to say that someone is invalid without providing references.)
Please look at the benefits and the rule of the apostles after JC.
Acts 2:38-46
"And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
Acts 4:32-37
"34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."
Acts 5:1-7
etc

Priesto wrote:Yes Jesus name in hebrew is yeshua which is in the original text of ancient bibles, hence it being in Hebrew.

I recomend the following interesting read:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9t5/9t5098.html
http://www.biblesociety.ca/about_bible/ ... languages/
http://www.metamind.net/aradirectory.html

Priesto wrote:Though there were others claiming to be the messiah, people were not so easily decieved as you would like to make it appear. You presume that people were idiots then and that we are supererior in todays world.But that is the exact opposite.People were smarter then, because things were more spiritual.Nowadays, people are more unaware of the things that go on around them.You didn't have to see something physically to know there was something wrong.

This is a trap, beware.
Are you claiming that people back then could see the difference between real miracles and tricks?
If so I would recommend that you read the bible again and see their reactions to JC. Now unless you claim that priests aren't people then it is evident that most of the scholars of the day didn't really see eye to eye with JC.
Your claim that people where less gullible back then because they where more spiritual just doesn't make sense to me. The bible speaks on several occasions of false prophets, the talmud and the historical documents of the Jews speaks of several false prophets and convicted frauds.
This is a construction of yours and I would like you to back it up with sources. If you don't then I and everyone who reads this will assume that this is only an opinion of yours.

My opinion are that people are people, and people are gullible. Spiritual or not.
Back then and now people are easy to fool and easier to lie to.
But such arguments have no validity on the disussion and I'm confused on why you would bring that up...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-30 12:39pm

Spoonist wrote:My opinion are that people are people, and people are gullible. Spiritual or not. Back then and now people are easy to fool and easier to lie to. But such arguments have no validity on the disussion and I'm confused on why you would bring that up...

True, although I would say that people are harder to fool now. Yes, people are still gullible. But when you look at the incredible bullshit that people accepted back then, you can't come to any other conclusion. When you add ignorance to innate gullibility, you get even greater acceptance of stupid ideas.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2002-09-30 04:12pm

Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius

Ok Heres my take. The guy spews forth platitudes out in the desert for a while, goes to Jerusalem, Spouts provintial anti-roman rethoric {snipped by constantine of course} Guy comes to attention of preists. Preists get Pilate to excecute him.

end of story

new testament sans 'miracles.'

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-30 05:23pm

Jesus was probably a real person. So was L. Ron Hubbard.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-09-30 09:14pm

Priesto wrote:If someone could explain what they find so mythical about Jesus, It'd be great.IF you could explain why you don't think he wa the son of God, that'd be cool too.Just for discussion.

That's easy. Jesus Q. Christ couldn't be the son of something that doesn't exist, anymore than he could be the son of the Invisible Pink Unicorns of the Andromeda Galaxy.

Besides, it would totally suck to have the infinite source of all evil, anger, and self-loathing as a father, let alone a 'savior'. *Brrr*, glad I let myself live my own life, yes-sir.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-09-30 11:00pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote:
Priesto wrote:If someone could explain what they find so mythical about Jesus, It'd be great.IF you could explain why you don't think he wa the son of God, that'd be cool too.Just for discussion.
That's easy. Jesus Q. Christ couldn't be the son of something that doesn't exist, anymore than he could be the son of the Invisible Pink Unicorns of the Andromeda Galaxy.

Besides, it would totally suck to have the infinite source of all evil, anger, and self-loathing as a father, let alone a 'savior'. *Brrr*, glad I let myself live my own life, yes-sir.

Sorry, looks like Darth Utsanomiko can't explain why, any more convincingly than anyone else. (Fortunately for all involved, no one has ever tried to explain that.) Suffice it to say that there is no God because... well... there just isn't, yeah... yeah, that's it...

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-09-30 11:52pm

Yeah, a guy named Jesus existed, actually Yeshua in the original form of the name from that time period. Back then the lingua fraca among the Israelites/Hebrews was Aramaic (the tradition survives to this day by writing all ketubas, or marriage contracts, in Aramaic but with Hebrew letters).

This Yeshua dude talked about God & religion & stuff, and a lot of others at that time did the same. The Romans may well have recorded some information about him, but remember, they didn't have the complicated birth/death records we have no, no SSN, so they wouldn't have much on him until the trial with Pilate. Lack of evidence does not automatically mean negation of existance, but bear in mind two things-- Roman rule was not tight; as long as provinces paid their taxes and levied tribute and troops when required, they were pretty much left to themselves. And two, this Yeshua guy probably was barely a blip on their radar screen, largely forgotten after the formalities were completed. Pilate hadn't heard about him and couldn't understand why the local magistrates wanted him killed, hence he acquiesced to their demands but 'washed his hands' of the whole thing. The records of that forgotten guy may well have been lost/destroyed as time went by and archives were moved, lost, destroyed... whatever.

All the collected stories that came later may well have been collected stories of other messianic figures of the time and then embellished by the storytellers, each one exaggerating their own roles. The Christian Church did not come into existence until some generations later, and the Jews certainly had no interest in keeping Yeshua's stories alive. Others collected the stories, under the watchful eye of no-one with a thought for canon, and later the Church added whatever they wanted to justify the power of the Roman pontiffs. And "Christ" is not a last name but a title, the Greek version of "meshiakh" (messiah), as in, the meshiakh prophesied in the Torah--

--who Yeshua was NOT.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-10-01 12:36am

Spoonist:

Not until after his death. If you read the bible again you will notice that he draws local crowds when he visits but not many actually follow him. This changes after his death (and resurrection of you wish) when the disciples creates a smaller society. John 19:25 (There was not a large following when he was crucified).
John 18:30-40 (The people choose Barabbas before JC.)

Since in other momments the gospel stats that Jesus atracted such crowd as never seen before there is other reasons to John´s
1 - John was the most mystical of the writers and also the most apokalyptic. He made a huge effort to made JC story be even with the messianic meaning of the hebrish myths from the previous period of JC, and in this period he tryied to make it in the line of Daniel (or perhaps Elliah...not this escape me), which had that little thing about the prophet being turned out by his own people.
2 - By them, the breaking between Christians and Jews are clear and the gospels start to show this. It already shows the bitterners that would happens between the 2 groups, by blaming the jews with the option to save or not jesus, and failing.
3 - This happened also after the real end of hystorical Israel. The revolt of the 60's was caused by the zealot movement. With that the gospels show a critic to jew society that chose to be destroyed by picking the zealot not the christians (In the figure of JC). In one of the gospels there is even a saying that the crowd say that the blood of jesus would mark then and their following generations if they are innocent. Its clear a show of upcoming destruction of jesusalem by the romans decades later.

True, although I would say that people are harder to fool now. Yes, people are still gullible. But when you look at the incredible bullshit that people accepted back then, you can't come to any other conclusion. When you add ignorance to innate gullibility, you get even greater acceptance of stupid ideas.

I Would say that some tricks got outdated and the new tricks are in the market.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-10-01 01:59am

I wouldn't call you stupid as you have called me, you are simply ignorant of the many facts I have stated concerning spirits.You confuse superstition with what is real.Superstition is myth I know this.But the evidence of demons and withcraft certainly is not.Only if your eyes were spiritually open, would you then be able to see it.Though you can at least sense it.It's cool if you want to dismiss it now as pure garbage. Oh, could you explain slavering fundamentalist? I find that to be an interesting term to say the least.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-01 02:00am

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
Darth Utsanomiko wrote:
Priesto wrote:If someone could explain what they find so mythical about Jesus, It'd be great.IF you could explain why you don't think he wa the son of God, that'd be cool too.Just for discussion.
That's easy. Jesus Q. Christ couldn't be the son of something that doesn't exist, anymore than he could be the son of the Invisible Pink Unicorns of the Andromeda Galaxy.

Besides, it would totally suck to have the infinite source of all evil, anger, and self-loathing as a father, let alone a 'savior'. *Brrr*, glad I let myself live my own life, yes-sir.
Sorry, looks like Darth Utsanomiko can't explain why, any more convincingly than anyone else. (Fortunately for all involved, no one has ever tried to explain that.) Suffice it to say that there is no God because... well... there just isn't, yeah... yeah, that's it...

Would you mind explaining to me what the hell you meant by that.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-10-01 05:34am

Priesto wrote:I wouldn't call you stupid as you have called me, you are simply ignorant of the many facts I have stated concerning spirits.

Um, is this directed to me (Spoonist) or to him (Raziel)? It would be much simpler for the continuing discussion. =)
I don't know if you have had a similar discussion before but in this thread you have stated very little 'concerning spirits'. Could you please clarify?

Priesto wrote:You confuse superstition with what is real.

You are moving the discussion from the existance of JC to present day spiritual awareness. Just wanted to point this out.

Priesto wrote:Oh, could you explain slavering fundamentalist?

I think he's just employing the old "if I attack the person I defeat his arguments" tactic. I'd say that you are more a mainstream christian so far in this discussion.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-10-01 07:06am

Since I see that some others have responded to this I thought that it could be proper to enter some thoughts on the subject.

Priesto wrote:If someone could explain what they find so mythical about Jesus, It'd be great.

If you do not believe in the bible then the bible and all it's characters are myth based on verbal traditions.
If you do not believe then even if a human being named Jesus son of Joseph existed then the miracles that the testimonies in the bible talk about are false. That would mean that there has been a creation of the 'mythical figure' of Jesus, similar to the mythical King Arthur which probably was based on a real king from the beginning.
Since you are a Christian a comparison would be your view of Buddha, we know that he was a real person but do you believe in the powers that has been ascribed to him? If you don't then you are regarding the stories of him as mythical even though his believers would say that it is the absolute truth.

Priesto wrote:IF you could explain why you don't think he was the son of God, that'd be cool too.Just for discussion.

With your question frased like that you are asking for opinions.
There are a few mega of jews that will explain exactly why JC didn't fullfill the prophecies of the Jewish bible.
There are many mega of muslims that will explain that he was only a prophet.
Then you have all the atheists who will just point out that there is no god and hence no son of god.
After that we can go into all the buddhists, hinduists, scientologists, etc...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-01 09:38am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Sorry, looks like Darth Utsanomiko can't explain why, any more convincingly than anyone else. (Fortunately for all involved, no one has ever tried to explain that.) Suffice it to say that there is no God because... well... there just isn't, yeah... yeah, that's it...
Would you mind explaining to me what the hell you meant by that.

He means that he's one of those mindless dumb-fucks who thinks that even though he dismisses Zeus, Buddha, Brahma, and all of the other gods solely because of a lack of evidence, one must actually prove a negative in order to dismiss the Judeo-Christian god. No rational inconsistency there ...

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2002-10-01 01:04pm

Guess he doesn't realize that out of the thousands of deities available in human cultures, believing in one god is only one step below not believing in any.

In other words, Raoul Duke Jr., you are an atheist who simply makes an irrational exception towards the cult worship of the Canaanite moutain god Yaweh. How quaint.

Appeals to popularity and authority aside, how are the various bibles out there any more valid than the statement "The Invisible Pink Unicorns of Andromeda love us"? I will not accept 3000 year-old fables written by fools, unless Jehovah manages to get his infinitely-evil ass down here and prove he's better than me, if he expects me to worship his gluttonus golden-idol authority.

At least unicorns don't try to establish dogmatic institutions based on ignorance, brainwashing, and anti-individualism.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-01 04:55pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Sorry, looks like Darth Utsanomiko can't explain why, any more convincingly than anyone else. (Fortunately for all involved, no one has ever tried to explain that.) Suffice it to say that there is no God because... well... there just isn't, yeah... yeah, that's it...
Would you mind explaining to me what the hell you meant by that.
He means that he's one of those mindless dumb-fucks who thinks that even though he dismisses Zeus, Buddha, Brahma, and all of the other gods solely because of a lack of evidence, one must actually prove a negative in order to dismiss the Judeo-Christian god. No rational inconsistency there ...

No, what I mean is that either you believe there is a god or you believe there is no god, and no one -- NO ONE -- has the remotest justification to tell you which one to believe, because neither belief can be proven. That, sir, is what I meant.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Did Jesus of Nazareth Actually Exist?

Is there historical secular record or other evidence that indicates Jesus of Nazareth actually existed?

Yea right...

Re: Yea right...