Did Jesus Exist?, Mythical figure or Actual Man? Options

[NoSex]

[I had posted part of this before in another thread. I wanted to have a debate on the historicity of Jesus, so here it is again. A bit changed. Discuss.]

I am skeptical that a man named Jesus Christ ever even existed. In all reality, there is not a strong amount of historical documentation within the supposed time of Jesus Christ. In fact, there isn't a single known document which mentions a Jesus Christ that could be found to have appeared during the supposed time of Christ. The earliest document outside of the Bible which mentioned a Jesus Christ appears late in the first century. A small paragraph speaks of a Jesus Christ in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. The interesting thing about this though is that the section which mentions the Christ has been under quite an amount of scrutiny. Many a scholar has expressed skepticism towards the document, and many, both liberal and conservative scholars, have taken the position that the mention of Jesus was not written by Josephus but added centuries later by dishonest christian historians.

Scholars often point to the most blaring problem within "Josephus'" passages. Josephus was a devout Jew but, in the text, refers to Jesus as "The Christ."

The passage appears in Book 18, chapter 3 and reads as follows:

"3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Although the first copies of Antiquities are believed to have appeared after 90 CE, the oldest copies available are dated back to the 9th century. All of the known copies and translations have been provided by christian sources. The work was also copied and kept alive by the church. As many have studied the text, it seems to fail authenticity in that the style and vocabulary used is highly unlike that of Josephus' other writings.

There is not a single other known document which mentions a Jesus Christ within the 1st century. There is a handful of scattered accounts of "The Christ" within the 2nd century, none of which refer to a "Jesus Christ." These seems distant and often a product of hearsay. Notable accounts are presented in small passages by Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger.

Still, not a single document naming the christ as "Jesus," within the 2nd century. As the "records" continue on into the 3rd and 4th centuries they become less and less significant. A "historical" record of a man who lived in the 1st century written in the 3rd century is a bit silly.

As you examine the documents, their authors, and the controversy involved with early christian historians creating counterfiet documents to support the historicity of their man-god you may become increasingly skeptical of a historical Jesus.

Heck, the Biblical accounts are even rather poor. Some later gospels appearing nearly six decades after the supposed death of Jesus. This would make Luke and John nearly 90 years old when they wrote their accounts. This seems highly unlikely for both the time and the situation. And, the earliest of the Gospels, Mark, doesn't even appear until 70 C.E.

It may also be noted that descending into heaven, rising from the dead, and general miracles were not much of a rare happening according to most ancient records. Suetonius, whose writings are presented as evidence for a historical Jesus, also wrote that Caesar Augustus flew into heaven after his death. Countless pagan mythology includes men-god, born of virgins, death and rebirth, as well as empty tombs and wrathful fathers; many of which date back before the Christ story.

Mithra, Dionysus, Horus, and many more ancient gods, which are contempary to the Jesus story, share numerous qualities and signs with the stories of early Christianity.

Some of the earliest writings of Christianity come from Paul of Tarsus inside his letters or Epistles. Paul is reported have written more than 80,000 words on early Christianity, which he helped to shape. However, a majority of scholars have seem to have come to the conclusion that Paul didn't even write most of his own letters, and those letters which he is believed to have written tell us little to nothing about a Jesus.

Paul is the gap between the death of Jesus and the emergence of the first Gospels in 70 C.E. But, Paul doesn't even mention ever meeting Jesus aside from within in a vision. Paul doesn't allude to a virgin birth. He doesn't say anything about Pontius Pilate, any trials, or the Pharisees. Paul doesn't give Jesus any kind of geography, he doesn't mention a single miracle, and he only speaks a few sentences concerning Jesus as an ethical teacher. Of all the words written by Paul, which closes the gap between the Gospels and the death of Jesus, we only hear about Jesus' sacrafice, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven. And, even these events are diluted, vague, and empty compared to later gospel accounts.

Paul may not have even believed that Jesus existed as a man on earth. At least, a many early Christians did not. Many of the Pauline, Gnostics, and Jewish Christians, which largely made up the earliest Christians, did not believe that God could ever take a human form. Many believed Jesus had only existed in a mythical realm.

The theory then becomes, as Brian Flemming puts it, "Everyone forgot, then they remembered."

Paul didn't seem to know as much as the authors of the Gospels seemed to know. And, the further you press the question, and invade the origins of Christianity, the less likely it seems a man named Jesus ever even existed.

Inconsistencies in gospel, and the total lack of important historians (Philo of Alexandria, Justus of Tiberius), within the region of christ, making note of Jesus within his time just enforce a skeptical position.

It isn't like mythicists are rare or shortsighted. There really is not a good case for the historical existence of a Jesus Christ.

[*kryogenix*]

The lack of writing on someone does not disprove their existence. Unfortunately, the Christians were persecuted and had to practice secretly for quite some time. Also, it is to my understanding that most scholars do not doubt a man named Jesus existed. Some argue his divine nature, but I've read that it's pretty much been agreed upon that Jesus did exist.

An Italian atheist tried starting a lawsuit on this, but it didn't get far.

[xklipse]

Yes, he did exist. I'm not christian, so I'm not being bias, but I read about it in a World History book, he was executed and nailed on the cross. I don't want to go into details because I don't remember it all. For all I know, if I say one thing wrong, I might offend someone

[NoSex]

The lack of writing on someone does not disprove their existence.

Of course not. I am not saying that the argument from ignorance is a deductive argument. It's not. However, in the case of history, it certaintly is a significant andvalid part of an inductive argument. Using rationality, we should weigh our beliefs so as to make them proportional to the evidence at hand. If there is no evidence that someone existed, than we have no reason that he or she did indeed exist. Thus, if we wish to be reasonable and rationable human beings, we should not believe that said person existed.

History also follows a certain level of rational standards when putting together accurate time lines. If we are told that there is an important figure who existed at a certain time, in most cases, we would expect that signs of this figure exist. These signs may come in many different forms, but they must be reliable and relevant. No signs can be found during the time of Jesus to support that such a man even existed as a man, no more than that we should believe Hercules existed.

Also, it is to my understanding that most scholars do not doubt a man named Jesus existed. Some argue his divine nature, but I've read that it's pretty much been agreed upon that Jesus did exist.

First you build a straw man of my argument, seemingly claiming that I was operating a deductive proof on an argument from ignorance and then you move into arguing a pure argument from popularity. Sure, scholars may truly believe that a man named Jesus existed. Heck, everyone in the world could believe such a proposition, but that doesn't prove it to be true. You have to actually make an argument, as I did above, not pretend to have one because some people are on your side.

So, why should I believe that a man named Jesus existed? What is the actual argument? What is the evidence?

Yes, he did exist.

I don't know for sure whether he did or did not. I can only follow the evidence. But, I'm curious, how can you be so sure?

I'm not christian, so I'm not being bias, but I read about it in a World History book, he was executed and nailed on the cross. I don't want to go into details because I don't remember it all. For all I know, if I say one thing wrong, I might offend someone

Argument from authority. Just because your World History book says it, doesn't mean it is true. You would actually be surprised at how much those books can get things wrong. But, aside from that, why do you think your World History book says such things? For what reason should I believe that the book's conclusion is true? What is the actual argument for the existence of a man named Jesus, where is the evidence?

I built an argument, and if you want to debate, I suggest you make counterpoints.

[flc]

Yes, I do think that there was a man named Jesus. Of course, I can't be sure, but I'm just going along with what scholars say.

[NoSex]

Yes, I do think that there was a man named Jesus. Of course, I can't be sure, but I'm just going along with what scholars say.

And what exactly do scholars say?

In fact, the majority of scholars, both secular and religious, agree that the gospels appear long after Jesus' supposed death and that their authorship is clearly anonymous and based on either hearsay or not even intended to be interpreted as historical by the author. Also, a majority of scholars view the later gospels are predominantly plagiarized from Mark and the "Q" source.

Not a single scholar or historian that I know of has presented any kind of evidence which existed during the time of Jesus in support of his historicity, despite the fact that this is the strongest and most significant, nearly vital, form of evidence in favor of establishing a historical figure.

I mean, did you even read my post?
What exactly is the argument for the existence of a man named Jesus?
Cause, no one has really seemed to make any counterpoints to my argument yet.

[AngelinaTaylor]

I think he might have existed, although I'm not sure whether he was a "messiah". I've read books that say that he was an ordinary man (who was married and had children, by the way), and that he was more of a revolutionary figure than a spiritual one. Notice, he was crucified, which means that he was killed because of plotting against Rome. He wasn't killed with stones, which would have happened for a religious crime.

He was more like what the Jews viewed him as.

Taylor``

[demolished]

If there was god that did existed right now.

everyone should had knew it already.


I dont think he did existed in real life. Back in the ancient days, there were countless of bloody events, horrible laws, excuted, gender rights, kings, queens, and unlogical beliefs that were being passed on through many generations.


Nowadays, we cannot discover God since we had many technology, logical beliefs, experts, educated people, DNA samples, and others tech. to track/trace almost everything on earth that are presence. We were stronger and able to determine what's right and wrong than before. we learned history-lessons and tried our best to avoid any possible major bad events.

[NoSex]

I still can not find a shred of evidence which dates back to the time of Jesus in which the man is recognized. If a mythological figure, I would imagine he was inspired by figures of a similar nature which predated his story. I would also propose that his story was created as a form of ancient political or social revolution.

I mean, who better to have on your side than the son of God? God himself, I guess.

[sadolakced acid]

Yes, he did exist. I'm not christian, so I'm not being bias, but I read about it in a World History book, he was executed and nailed on the cross. I don't want to go into details because I don't remember it all. For all I know, if I say one thing wrong, I might offend someone

be wary of believing everythign you read in history books, expecially ones for below college level, and even moreso those made for schools.

hmmm. romulus and remus, sons of mars and rhea, from a virgin birth...

baptism and communion, as well as salvation through faith, i belive, were all attributes of mithras.

christianity is the stolen religion. i wouldn't be too suprised if the man was stolen himself, although, i do believe there did exist a man named jesus, but i don't think he was in any way connected with christianity.

[Joss-eh-lime]

well jesus is spoken about in the bible many times, and many parts of the bible were proven to have happened.

i know he existed though.

[sadolakced acid]

because of your faith?

you can't know becuase of faith. it violates the definition of faith.

faith is not knowing, but trusting anyways.

ergo, if you KNOW the things in the bible are true, you have no faith in jesus.

if you have faith in jesus, you don't know whether or not he's real, but CHOOSE to trust and believe.

and that's what gives jesus power.

[*ECD & C0*]

i mean there is some proof to what they say i think that he did

[31miracles]

i know a few mexicans named jesus if that counts

[Paradox of Life]

i mean there is some proof to what they say i think that he did

What proof and what is the source of which you've gotten this information?

[forza]

If I'm not mistaken, thousands of scholars have verified Jesus' existence. Whether or not he was a miracle worked/son of God is what's in question; for myself and millions worldwide..

[NoSex]

If I'm not mistaken, thousands of scholars have verified Jesus' existence.

Main Entry: ver·i·fy
Pronunciation: 'ver-&-"fI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English verifien, from Anglo-French verifier, from Medieval Latin verificare, from Latin verus true
1 : to confirm or substantiate in law by oath
2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of <verify the claim>

I would have to say that you are mistaken. I have done quite a deal of research on the subject and have found that the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is entirely unverified. It isn't accurately substantiated, nor has it ever been demonstrated to be of reality. So, by definition, I would say you're mistaken. However, if you disagree, you are welcome to move away from an argument from authority, and establish to us exactly why you believe scholars have verified such an existence.

[forza]

Well, not only through their validation of the written accounts have scholars found proof of his existence, but through artifacts surrounding those closest to him.

The names found throughout the New Testament are continually being uncovered. Pontius Pilate's tomb/monument, several of the Pharisees' final resting places, Caiaphas, Mary Magdelene, David, Jeremiah, etc.

Most recently, James' ossuary was uncovered. As I'm sure you know, it was dated back to 62 AD -- the year he died, and on the side was inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in verified early 1st century Aramaic (by Joseph Fitzmeyer, a leading expert in the field).

It would be difficult to prove Jesus' existence itself, especially with the Gospel's insistence on his resurrection. Therefore, according to the Bible, he left no mortal remains. How better to determine the accuracy of the Gospel than to confirm the existence of the people closest to him?

As well, I look to the empirical evidence supporting his existence: quite simply, other religions. Many, including Islam, recognize Jesus as an important teacher and great influence, but simply deny his relation to a higher deity. I don't think it's coincidence that other religions recognize his existence. If anything, they should deny it right alongside you and I, no?

[NoSex]

Well, not only through their validation of the written accounts have scholars found proof of his existence, but through artifacts surrounding those closest to him.

The names found throughout the New Testament are continually being uncovered. Pontius Pilate's tomb/monument, several of the Pharisees' final resting places, Caiaphas, Mary Magdelene, David, Jeremiah, etc.

Most recently, James' ossuary was uncovered. As I'm sure you know, it was dated back to 62 AD -- the year he died, and on the side was inscribed "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in verified early 1st century Aramaic (by Joseph Fitzmeyer, a leading expert in the field).

The only written accounts that we have of a Jesus of Nazareth are, and have been sufficiently found to be, hearsay. They are not eye witness accounts but stories written not by their respective narratives, but by later men. Not even do biblical writings mention Jesus until decades after his supposed death.

Funny that early christians could not agree as to even if Jesus had existed as a man. Characters such as Pontius Pilate easily had historical context (the man existed), but most scholars would tell you the story of Jesus in relation to Pilate seems very unlikely at best. Pharisees communing on a sabbath day to convict a man, also wildly unlikely. These seem to be folkorist tellings, not historical accounts. Earlier christians had never even seemed to have heard of any trial, Pontius Pilate, or the pharisees.

Yeah, James ossuary. Although there are still individuals who believe in its authenticity, the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) and the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI), who have had the most time to study the artifact, have concluded that the inscription is a modern forgery. Although the ossuary itself was found to be authentic, the inscription has had a heavy cast of doubt. They found that several different layers of chalk existed on the ossuary. A final layer of chalk was found to be artificial and only covered the inscription. Even more curiously, the Joseph inscription, which was presented soon after the find of the ossuary, by similar parties, was found to have multiple casses of misspelling, and alphabet/character diversion. There was an official investigation which found a modern forgery racket.

Did you read my first post in its entirety, by the way?

It would be difficult to prove Jesus' existence itself, especially with the Gospel's insistence on his resurrection. Therefore, according to the Bible, he left no mortal remains. How better to determine the accuracy of the Gospel than to confirm the existence of the people closest to him?

The interesting thing about this is that the Gospels have such wilding divergent and contradictory accounts that it only increases skepticism in the matter.

As well, I look to the empirical evidence supporting his existence: quite simply, other religions. Many, including Islam, recognize Jesus as an important teacher and great influence, but simply deny his relation to a higher deity. I don't think it's coincidence that other religions recognize his existence. If anything, they should deny it right alongside you and I, no?

Islam's recognition of a Jesus character, as well as other non-christian religions, is almost entirely superficial as theses recognitions are all entirely based on hearsay from Christian supporters. They are in no way "empirical."
I don't think it is anything spectacular, and given the time frame, almost entirely irrelevent.

[forza]

I did, in fact, read your first post.

There is not a single other known document which mentions a Jesus Christ within the 1st century.

And I find a problem with your reasoning. Of course, you're trying to prove he didn't exist, that's your objective. You point to the fact that there is little physical proof from 2,000 years ago to suggest he existed, but, unfortunately, you can never win because people have been crusading to disprove his existence for thousands of years and they always fail.

I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate/question it, but the pro-existence side appears, in my eyes, to have the advantage in that they only play offense. They continually provide new angles and arguments for the con-existence side to deflect. But has the con side ever done anything but question the validity of of the pro side's curveballs?

Believe me, the day that the naysayers make an argument of their own based on some findings of their own, I'll listen to it. But if this is a 2000 year old smokescreen that some of the best, most aggressive scholars in the world can't navigate through, I'm left only to drink it in.

And regarding the ossuary, several members of the IAA and GSI who signed the report of inauthenticity have since reverted. The controversy with the inscription came with the word "brother" in the phrase "brother of Jesus." Their skepticism stemmed from the conclusion that it was a more cursive and plural form of Aramaic used hundreds of years later. The signees that reverted, however, contend that it has been found on several 1st century scrolls and documents. We'll have to wait and see how the con side will play defense on that one, though.

[ghetosmurph]

if you have faith in jesus, you don't know whether or not he's real, but CHOOSE to trust and believe.

and that's what gives jesus power.

Ok, you need to shut your mouth and not open it again.... Jesus does not gain his power because people have faith in him..... This is nothing like Santa Clause and the entire, people must believe in order to make the sleigh fly idea. No, Christianity is based belief on the fact that Christ is God the Son, the Seond Person of the Blessed Trinity. (Now, I am Catholic and I am not sure whether the different protestant denominations beieve in the trinity..... so dont shoot me..... but Catholocism was Christianity up until the protestant revolt, so what I say is thechnically true) Christ has his power because not only is he the son of God, He is God. His power in now way is supposedly linked to belief in his divinity, or his existence for that matter. Please don't just make stuff up if you don't know what you are talking about.

First you build a straw man of my argument, seemingly claiming that I was operating a deductive proof on an argument from ignorance and then you move into arguing a pure argument from popularity......

Argument from authority. Just because your World History book says it, doesn't mean it is true.

Well, someone took a course in formal Logic..... very nice work..... btw, "argument from popularity" is better known as "Band Wagon"..... now it's my turn, no?

Question... CE is the politically correct term for AD, right? ok.

The Oxford Fragment - part of Matthew's Gospel currently residing in a museum in England date back to around 70 AD.

also we have Fragment 7Q5 - A part of Mark's gospel found in the dead sea scrolls that dates back to 50 AD..... 20 years before your alleged 70 AD

The Rylands Fragment - a large portion of John's gospel, found in Upper egypt, dates back to 100 AD. However, this is quite far from the Mediterranian Sea, and b/c of it's distance, the trade patterns in this area, and the average time for the spread of literature over such and area, it must have been written much earlier

Also it is presumed that the Gospels had to have been written before 70 AD, because not a single one mentions the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Destruction of the temple was like the end of the world for the Jews, and had been prophecied by Jesus, the prophecy actually being contained within the gospels. Because it was such a major event and Jesus prophecied it, you would think that at least one of the gospels would contain record of it. Not a single one of the gospels even alludes to the fact that this prophcy came true.

Now, If we do assume from all of the above that the gospels were in fact written before the year 70 AD. This would mean they were published within living memory. This means that they were published at a time when people who had been there and experienced the events were still alive and able to act as a check agaginst the validity of all the different parts of the gospels, yet not one document from this time period has been found claiming anything within the Gospels to be false.

Also all of the Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Luke was not an eyewitness but is believed to have recieved all of his information from eyewitnesses, such as Mary. Mark was eyewitness to parts of the Gospels, but not all. However, he was a close follower of Peter, and a Jewish historian, Papias, who lived C. 120 AD said that Mark wrote down Peter's teachings.

You also have the fact that all 12 of the apostles died as martyers in defense of the teachings of the gospels. Do really think they would have had the guts to put up with persecution and even sacrafice thier lives for a lie, much less someone who didn't even exist? And their deaths are all documented by those who killed them.

Joesephus confirmed not only the existence of Christ in his books "The Antiquites of the Jews", and "The Jewish Wars" but also other details contained within the Gospels, further demonstrating that they are in fact reliable historical documents. In regards to Jesus alone, he confirmed that Jesus lived, he confirmed that Jesus worked miracles, he confirmed that Jesus was executed by order of Pontius Pilate, and he confirmed that Jesus tomb was empty 3 days after his ressurection. He also said that some people claimed the Jesus rose from the dead, but he could not be sure himself. Now in regards to your excerpt from The Antiquites of the Jews, the "[the]" means is was inserted into the translation to make it read better, no? well if you read it without the "[the]", it reads "He was Christ". You can't take his refrerring to Jesus as "Christ" or even "the Christ", as as conspiracy plot that someone put that excerpt in there at a later date. "It was generally accepted at that time to refer to Jesus as "Christ", or even "the Christ", even by Jews who didn't believe he was the Messiah. And I am skeptical that any accurate conclusions can be made from comparing a 7 line excerpt from one book to the rest of of Josephus's writings in order to say that they fail to be of the same style and vocabulay used by Josephus.

To your "myths" idea. In comparisons done by historians, none of the writings in the gospels come even close to the myths generated at, around, before, or after this time. The gospels are all simple and concrete, not extravagant or exaggerated in any way. Comparing the gopels to mythological stories is in fact negative transfer, one of the informal fallacies, and not a valid form of argumentation.

We can also be certain that the accounts of the gospels used today are accurate and untampered with. The Bohmer Papyrus, is the earliest know full version of John's gospel and it is the exact same as the version used today. The Bohmer papyrus dates back to the early 200's AD. The earlist full account of the other gospel all date to C. 300 AD, but again are the exact same as copies used today.

The last thing showing the historical reliablility of the gospels is that everything that has been checked out agrees with known fact. We have even found proof of the existance of cities named in the gospels that dont exist today. Archeology, manuscripts, and ancient writings, all support the fact that the gospels are historically reliable documents.

Therefore, if the Gospels have been proved by historians to be historically reliable documents, we have historically reliable evidence of Jesus's existence.

All of my information comes directly from my World History Class, taucht by Mrs. Anne Carroll with the assistance of her husband Dr. Warren H. Carroll. Catholic historians who have written quite a few books on this and many other subjects. Go look them up if you would like. Dr. Carroll was the founder of Christendom College but had to stop teaching b/c of a stroke. He now assists his wife, who has written several books of her own in the history classes she teaches at our highschool. All of the information you have been given does not come out of some text book but directly out of their research notes.

Now for some of my personal thoughts on things that the above did not cover.

The Lack of important historians in his time period making note of the existance of Chirst, might have something to do with the fact that at the time, Christ was not well known outside of the Mediterrenian, and by the time, new of what was going on would have spread to said important historians, it would have been long after the occurance of the events, and there would have been no real way to determine the validity of such things at that time.

also, everything above does not apply to the letters of paul in the epistles..... Yes he had many early christian writings.... No, I would not expect them to contain information about Jesus, because 1) He was not one of the 12 apostles, nor knew Jesus personally. His fist encounter with Jesus was when Jesus blinded him, as then "Saul", on the way wherever it was he was going. 2) Those letters were written to christian faithful who had questions about what they were supposed to believe and was was allowed and what not, and to encourage them to continue in thier beliefs despite of persecution. Paul did all his evangelizing in person. Still, his teachings on christ have no bearing on christ's existence. Red Herring - Diversion..... maybe Sic Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc..... hmmmmm kinda a mix

[forza]

^ there's no need to get bitter.

[ghetosmurph]

sorry.... I wasnt trying to be bitter but I can see that I sort of came across that way.... my apologies

[Frostedflakes616]

I do believe in Jesus, I'm a Roman Catholic and believe and know all or at least most of the bible readings and stories behind them. I do attend church on Sundays and sometimes on other days of the week.

But... sometimes I think about it, and I wonder if Jesus really walked the Earth. I don't think there were any real physical proof he existed. They shuolda found the cross where he was crucifixed and all that. Or something.

Sometimes I just think that someone just made up those stories just for another religion to become. In my opinion, I'm just not sure. Sometimes I doubt it, but sometimes I believe.

[ghetosmurph]

Paul may not have even believed that Jesus existed as a man on earth. At least, a many early Christians did not. Many of the Pauline, Gnostics, and Jewish Christians, which largely made up the earliest Christians, did not believe that God could ever take a human form. Many believed Jesus had only existed in a mythical realm.

I completely forgot to adress this..... The early heresy you are referring to, docetism (sp?) was the theory that Jesus never actually became man, he was always divine, not that he existed in a mystical realm. But like every other heresy it was denounced by Peter and the rest of the apostles, and here is no evidence whatsoever the Paul believed in said heretical teachings......

[pinacoolada]

yep.

[rAwritsgWeg]

Yes, he did exist. I'm not christian, so I'm not being bias, but I read about it in a World History book, he was executed and nailed on the cross. I don't want to go into details because I don't remember it all. For all I know, if I say one thing wrong, I might offend someone

Oh really? I can't even say anything towards that.

Anyways, Im Agreeing with AcidBath(nice avatarand siggy..lol im not joking, they are different than what you normally see) I'm pretty skeptical when it comes to Jesus being...REAL. I'm atheist so my thoughts are completely different compared to a christians but, that's besides the point. In my eyes, Jesus isn't real. People say that it was possible that jesus had a lot of followers becuase he was able to heal people but it's in a different sense than what people think it is. He just solved Problems for people, he wasn't a god. That's true becuase there isn't such a thing. I'm basing this on nothing but what I'm thinking of right now. Once I actually pull out my findings, I'll be sure to post some of them. I'm truly sorry if I offended anyone

[forza]

^ I respect your thoughts and everything, but when you say that "there is no such thing as a god" you're really not going to be able to come back with some "findings" on that one.

[Melissawilson5]

Jesus Does exsist

[datass]

I personally think, Jesus existed and all the torture and scary stuff happened too, but he was just an ordinary man, just like the rest of us. So yeah, I don't think he did anything supernatural or whatever. I also don't think there's God because there has been no way to prove that there is an existence of God. But afterall, this is my personal opinion only.

[rAwritsgWeg]

^ I respect your thoughts and everything, but when you say that "there is no such thing as a god" you're really not going to be able to come back with some "findings" on that one.

Ya I do think I went a bit overboard on that one. Im Sorry about that. I think I Just went a little crazy.

[lumpy]

why would 934039458309458304958 (i'm not sure how many, but that number sounds about right), read the Bible, go to Church, and pray, if Jesus wasn't real?

[NoSex]

why would 934039458309458304958 (i'm not sure how many, but that number sounds about right), read the Bible, go to Church, and pray, if Jesus wasn't real?

The same reason 934039458309458304958 people read the Vedas, go to Mandir, and meditate in thought of Brahman.

[ghetosmurph]

The same reason 934039458309458304958 people read the Vedas, go to Mandir, and meditate in thought of Brahman.

So you're insinuating that Hinduism has no basis of truth either? Care to explain that one?

[NoSex]

So you're insinuating that Hinduism has no basis of truth either? Care to explain that one?

Either?

1. I was never proposing that the entirety of Christianity had absolutely no basis in truth whatsoever.
2. My insinuation has very little (to nothing) to do with a possible basis of truth within Hinduism or not.

I'm saying people believe in religion and spirituality, not because it is true, but because it makes them feel good. Clearly, not both Christianity and Hinduism are entirely true religions. They can not both be true. The poster seemed to suggest that since many people believe in Christianity, that Jesus must have been real (to what extent he wishes, I am not sure). All I was meaning to demonstrate is that there are many more people who believe divergent things. He can't permit that both systems are true, yet many people still believe in each.

[ghetosmurph]

The poster seemed to suggest that since many people believe in Christianity, that Jesus must have been real (to what extent he wishes, I am not sure). All I was meaning to demonstrate is that there are many more people who believe divergent things. He can't permit that both systems are true, yet many people still believe in each.

There is no way to prove that the sysems are in fact mutually exclusive.... but that's a completely different topic, so for the sake of argumentation I'll conceed to your point. I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. My apologies.

[forza]

I'm still curious, though, when is the con-existence side going to do anything but question the proof that Jesus existed?

When are they going to have enough evidence to show that he didn't? The answer is never.

[datass]

why would 934039458309458304958 (i'm not sure how many, but that number sounds about right), read the Bible, go to Church, and pray, if Jesus wasn't real?

So are you saying if 934039458309458304958 people read the bible, go to church, and pray, then Jesus must be real?

[benedictkenny]

I'm still curious, though, when is the con-existence side going to do anything but question the proof that Jesus existed?

When are they going to have enough evidence to show that he didn't? The answer is never.

Which proves that Jesus DID exist, oh wait...

[forza]

Which proves that Jesus DID exist, oh wait...

I never said that the lack of proof on the con-side verified his existence. My aim was to show that the inability of the con-side to heartily disprove his existence leaves the pro-side in a better position in most respects.

Hoorah for misconstruing the idea.

[sadolakced acid]

you do that yourself when you question the inability to prove his nonexistance.

and yet you ignore me when i say this:

if you can prove jesus exists, you have no faith, and suck as a christian. so stop trying.

[Melissawilson5]

I personally think, Jesus existed and all the torture and scary stuff happened too, but he was just an ordinary man, just like the rest of us. So yeah, I don't think he did anything supernatural or whatever. I also don't think there's God because there has been no way to prove that there is an existence of God. But afterall, this is my personal opinion only.

Hm so you seem to think jesus existed but you don't believe that there is no God Umm interesting your a werido!!

[forza]

you do that yourself when you question the inability to prove his nonexistance.

and yet you ignore me when i say this:

if you can prove jesus exists, you have no faith, and suck as a christian. so stop trying.

Umm, I'm not sure if you were addressing me, but if you were, I'm sorry that I've been ignoring you?

In response, however, the "inability to prove his nonexistence" you reference is, in my eyes, continually barraged by an onslaught of evidence and articles attempting to verify him as a man that lived at one time. That is why I'm so put off by the attempts to disprove his existence because they are based solely on convenient doubt.

But the statement you made, "if you can prove jesus exists, you have no faith, and suck as a christian. so stop trying." isn't wholly true. Christians don't really base their faith on the fact that Jesus existed as a man -- that much they recognize. Rather, they have faith in his status as the "son of God." It is this aspect of Jesus, the man, that they can't prove. Therefore, they have faith in it.

EDIT//

Hm so you seem to think jesus existed but you don't believe that there is no God Umm interesting your a werido!!

You really need to read the rules of this forum.

[sadolakced acid]

no, christianity is about total faith.

now, the faith is that jesus was the christ. however, it is easier to believe this with proof of his existance as a man.

ergo, proof of his existance as a man undermines your faith in jesus, resulting in inferior christianity.

[oXMuhNirvanaXo]

Jesus comes to the chat all the time. You should come ask him your self. :-)

[*digital.fragrance*]

no, christianity is about total faith.

now, the faith is that jesus was the christ. however, it is easier to believe this with proof of his existance as a man.

ergo, proof of his existance as a man undermines your faith in jesus, resulting in inferior christianity.

However, faith in Jesus means you believe that he was a both God and man (the Son of Man, the God Man... God incarnate.. etc.) therefore proving he exists doesn't result in inferior christianity. It's merely boosting your confidence in something you had total faith in to begin with.. and it's cool to do that research.

[ghetosmurph]

no, christianity is about total faith.

now, the faith is that jesus was the christ. however, it is easier to believe this with proof of his existance as a man.

ergo, proof of his existance as a man undermines your faith in jesus, resulting in inferior christianity.

wow..... that doesn't follow at all.... There is not a shred of truth in any part of that satement..... Christianity has never been about total faith.... it is about faith based on scripture and tradition.... the tradition part kinda got screwed over by martin luther in the protestant revolt, so now many christian denominations base their faith solely on scripture and concience.... but it has never been about total faith.... and proving something true that you believed to be true for centuries does not undermine your faith, it strengthens it..... Where are you getting your information on Christianity? This is the second time you have made an argument based on completely false notions of christian beliefs..... please, I thought we were supposed to be basing our argument on fact.... not spewing the bs that pops into our heads..... do some research...... and realize that you will find a lot of people who claim to be christians but really have no clue when it comes to their religion. Go talk to a priest or reverend and get the facts on what Christianity is all about.... then you can come back and try to use true statements to convince us of your point...... when you try to make a point from false authority, you end up making no point at all.

[forza]

no, christianity is about total faith.

now, the faith is that jesus was the christ. however, it is easier to believe this with proof of his existance as a man.

ergo, proof of his existance as a man undermines your faith in jesus, resulting in inferior christianity.

That logic is extremely faulty. At no point in any of my research of the Christian religon have I encountered any doctrine about having faith that Jesus actually was a person on this earth. The faith part lies in his power to "absolve us from sin" and to "deliver us from evil" as the "son of God."

I know you try deductive reasoning and whatnot, but how do you arrive at these whimsical points?

however, it is easier to believe this [that Jesus was the son of God] with proof of his existance as a man.

That doesn't prove anything, nor does it make anything easier. His mere existence on the earth does no justice to whether he is a deity or not.

[sadolakced acid]

question: is it easier to believe jesus was the son of god if you know there was a man about the time named jesus who was prominent enough for records of him to be made?

if the answer is in any form yes, then proving the existance of a person named jesus is a lack of faith. seeking the proof is a lack of faith, and seeking the facts is a lack of faith.

and if i'm not mistaken, god's power comes from faith and faith alone. that's why he refuses to prove his existance- correct? he could make miracles all day, but then people owuldn't beleive out of faith.

[forza]

question: is it easier to believe jesus was the son of god if you know there was a man about the time named jesus who was prominent enough for records of him to be made?

Why shouldn't you? Why shouldn't you seek to prove his existence if you have an army of skeptics breathing down your neck?

Your logic still doesn't stand up, and it won't.

[sadolakced acid]

becuase faith isn't about that.

don't worry about my logic. it's infallible. that's becuase it's not mine. it's what i've heard all the time in these debates. tha'ts it's about faith. that the reason god doesn't proove his existance is because his power comes from faith.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Why shouldn't you? Why shouldn't you seek to prove his existence if you have an army of skeptics breathing down your neck?

Your logic still doesn't stand up, and it won't.

its perfectly natural to seek proof in the face of skepticism. but that really isnt the point.

the point is that said seeking undermines faith

[ghetosmurph]

question: is it easier to believe jesus was the son of god if you know there was a man about the time named jesus who was prominent enough for records of him to be made?

if the answer is in any form yes, then proving the existance of a person named jesus is a lack of faith. seeking the proof is a lack of faith, and seeking the facts is a lack of faith.

and if i'm not mistaken, god's power comes from faith and faith alone. that's why he refuses to prove his existance- correct? he could make miracles all day, but then people owuldn't beleive out of faith.

No, proving the existance of Jesus as a person does not make it any easier to believe that he is the Son of God..... The two are in no way connected...... Just because I exist, does that make it any easier for you to believe that I am actually the prime minister of timbuktu and I have buried a nuclear warhead in your backyard? please, believing the divinity of christ is not made any easier by the awarenes of his actual his actual existence..... I am aware Mohammed existed though prominent records..... does that make it easier for me to believe that he is really Allah's greatest prophet, and that the muslim religion is in actuality the one true religion? No.

and I just had to quote this again before I start the next part of my counter argument...

and if i'm not mistaken, god's power comes from faith and faith alone. that's why he refuses to prove his existance- correct? he could make miracles all day, but then people owuldn't beleive out of faith.

wow... thank you for sticking your foot in your mouth, before you shot yourself in the foot......

For starters, you are mistaken..... completely mistaken if that what you think christians believe..... God's power doesn't come from anywhere.... he is omnipotent, all powerful, there is no other like him, he created us to know love and serve him and be happy with him in heaven, or maybe just because he was bored, but no matter why he created us, he did. And logically, how can his power, which he used to create us, be contingent upon the "faith"of his creations..... it just doesn't make sense.......

Next, he doesn't refuse to prove his existence to us....... he tried..... he appeared to some, he sent his prophets out to tell the people what he had revealed, he even sent his own son as a sign of the new covenant between God and man. But, God gave us free will and so we have the choice to believe in his existance or not to..... why? I don't know, maybe he just wanted to make things interesting, maybe he didn't just want a bunch of mindless zombies in heaven.... No matter his reasons, just because everyone doesn't recognize the signs that doesn't mean he didn't give us a lack of proof for his existance..... And yeah he could make miracles all day, and shock and awe all of us into believing...... but if he did that we wouldn't have the free will to choose to follow him..... It has to do with the fact that God doesn't want to encroach on the rights he gave us as human beings, such as free will...... it's not that he needs us to believe in him to give him power..... He wants the reason for us being in heaven to be because we want to be in heaven with him, not because he scared the shit out of us..... If he did that, what would be the point of creating us with free will in the first place......

becuase faith isn't about that.

don't worry about my logic. it's infallible. that's becuase it's not mine. it's what i've heard all the time in these debates. tha'ts it's about faith. that the reason god doesn't proove his existance is because his power comes from faith.

Where the heck do you get off calling hearsay infallible? That is insulting..... Go talk to a priest or reverend and take whoever you heard that from with you..... Get yourselves set straight from an authoritative source please.

This was suposed to be a debate on the proof of Jesus' existence, not the special education of clueless people.... Your entire point has nothing to the actual debate.... hypthetically, even if you were right (which is sooooo far from the truth), saying that the fact that we can prove the existence of christ shows a lack of faith has absolutely nothing to do with the topic..... it was a cheap (and horribly made) attempt to attack Christian beliefs to try and say that we were being self contradicting by trying to defend our beliefs...... which had no bearing on the argument in the first place other than trying to switch the topic and make this an attack on christianity in general, rather than on the existence of Jesus. To recap, Acid bath slayer started the argument saying that there was a lack of historical data proving his existence..... I countered he argument and showed that there is no such lack because the gospels have been deemed historically reliable documents, giving the proofs for such...... unless someone can counter my argument, I have outlayed enough evidence to prove jesus did exist...... which would mean that the debate is over..... so either get your facts straight and make a feasible counter argument, or shut up and give someone else the chance.......

[forza]

^ you are right in most everything that you refuted, yet you are a wee bit on the derogatory side.



However, this is what I was getting at:

No, proving the existance of Jesus as a person does not make it any easier to believe that he is the Son of God..... The two are in no way connected...... Just because I exist, does that make it any easier for you to believe that I am actually the prime minister of timbuktu and I have buried a nuclear warhead in your backyard? please, believing the divinity of christ is not made any easier by the awarenes of his actual his actual existence..... I am aware Mohammed existed though prominent records..... does that make it easier for me to believe that he is really Allah's greatest prophet, and that the muslim religion is in actuality the one true religion? No.

I just didn't have the whimsical example to supplement it.

[sadolakced acid]

well, you can't be right both times.

i'm only repeating the arguement christians give to "why god won't prove his existance"

so, who's lying?

[ghetosmurph]

^ that question does not really have an answer because it is our belief that he has proved his existence. If someone says otherwise, and considers themself christian, I would encourage them to go speak to their pastor or reverend to get themselves set straight.... like I said before, there are a lot of people that are only nominal christians and have no idea what they are really talking about..... If you want concrete documented answers that you can trust, go talk to a priest or reverend....

[sadolakced acid]

that's one of the funniest things iv'e ever heard.

"if you want concrete documented answers that you can trust, go talk to a priest or reverend"

is that before or after he fucks me up the ass?

are is no evidence to the existance of god. if there is, i'd like to heard it. without having to go to a priest or something.

[forza]

is that before or after he fucks me up the ass?

Is that really called for?

[*I Shot JFK*]

well, it was funny.

[ghetosmurph]

grrrrrrrr........ OK, here you go..... the proofs for God's existence

1) Motion - There is motion. motion is the change from potential to actual. In order to bring something from the potential to the actual, it must be done by someone or something that actually exists already. ex. If you come up with a design for a desk, you cant make that desk actually exist, unless you are actually physically present to do so. So, if you trace everything back, there has to be something that started everything, that was never potential but was always actual, known as the unmoved mover. It is not possibe that everything just happened randomly, something had to start it all.

2) Efficient Causality - Every effect has a cause. How did that tree outside start growing? The squirrel that carried the nut and randomly buried it there and forgot about it. How do you exist? Your mom and dad had some fun. Now if you taced every little thing back as far as possible, it all goes back to one thing... one uncaused cause.... An infinitely regressing series is not possible solely because you exist. There must be an uncaused cause.

3) Contingency / Dependancy - All things are contingent. When we observe reality, we see everything that is. But we also know that at one time it was not there, or at least we can imagine it not being there. Example- that computer sitting in front of you hasn't always existed.... neither has the tree outside the window. If all things are contingent and you trace everything back, eventually we reach the point where we have nothing, and something cannot come from nothing. There has to be a necesary being which exist by nature.

4) Gradation of Being - we can see that there are different levels of beings.... men, animals, plants, inanimate objects..... there must be a source of being, a source which we all came from, and no effect can be greater than it's cause. There has to be a supreme being, some self existing being, greater than us, that put into motion the cause we are all contingent upon. Still with me?

5) Final Causality - Every being has a purpose. Even non-rational beings like animals act for an end. But these things cannot direct themselves. They don't have the ablitily to choose what they are working for, they do it out of instinct. Where do they get this instinct? This infused knowledge. Some being had to determine to what end at these things were working. There has to be some sort of ultimate designer.

That's the best I can do from memory.... I think I hit all the logic parts..... This is the cliffnotes version..... you want to read the actual thing it's a book called "Summa Theologica" and it's written by Thomas Aquinas, and based on the philosiphy of Aristotle..... have fun..... it's quite long but if you have any questions on any/all of the ^ it'll be in there fully explained, kapeish? It proves for a fact though logic the existence of one all powerful, self existing being who started everything..... which is the definition of God......

Oh! and if you read the book, you don't have to go to a priest or anything! yay for you! Just what you were looking for! Yay!

and once again I would like to reiterate:

This was suposed to be a debate on the proof of Jesus' existence, not the special education of clueless people.... Your entire point has nothing to the actual debate.... hypthetically, even if you were right (which is sooooo far from the truth), saying that the fact that we can prove the existence of christ shows a lack of faith has absolutely nothing to do with the topic..... it was a cheap (and horribly made) attempt to attack Christian beliefs to try and say that we were being self contradicting by trying to defend our beliefs...... which had no bearing on the argument in the first place other than trying to switch the topic and make this an attack on christianity in general, rather than on the existence of Jesus. To recap, Acid bath slayer started the argument saying that there was a lack of historical data proving his existence..... I countered he argument and showed that there is no such lack because the gospels have been deemed historically reliable documents, giving the proofs for such...... unless someone can counter my argument, I have outlayed enough evidence to prove jesus did exist...... which would mean that the debate is over..... so either get your facts straight and make a feasible counter argument, or shut up and give someone else the chance.......

[sadolakced acid]

where you see god i see science.

there is no concrete proof of the existance of god.

there is also no concerete proof of the existance of jesus.

beyond the occasional writings which may have been influenced by various things. ergo, not to be trusted.

[*liquidize*]

Religion isn't to be f**ked with. Look at what happened with the muslims or whatever...AND THE JEWS..

[*baby_in_blue*]

i dont know.

[*I Shot JFK*]

grrrrrrrr........ OK, here you go..... the proofs for God's existence

1) Motion - There is motion. motion is the change from potential to actual. In order to bring something from the potential to the actual, it must be done by someone or something that actually exists already. ex. If you come up with a design for a desk, you cant make that desk actually exist, unless you are actually physically present to do so. So, if you trace everything back, there has to be something that started everything, that was never potential but was always actual, known as the unmoved mover. It is not possibe that everything just happened randomly, something had to start it all.

ludicrous. why on earth is it not possible for random chemical reactions to create life. the answer you have is simply that you believe oherwise, which is useless in debate.

2) Efficient Causality - Every effect has a cause. How did that tree outside start growing? The squirrel that carried the nut and randomly buried it there and forgot about it. How do you exist? Your mom and dad had some fun. Now if you taced every little thing back as far as possible, it all goes back to one thing... one uncaused cause.... An infinitely regressing series is not possible solely because you exist. There must be an uncaused cause.

repeating endlessly debated philosophical ideas does not equate to proof of anything.

3) Contingency / Dependancy - All things are contingent. When we observe reality, we see everything that is. But we also know that at one time it was not there, or at least we can imagine it not being there. Example- that computer sitting in front of you hasn't always existed.... neither has the tree outside the window. If all things are contingent and you trace everything back, eventually we reach the point where we have nothing, and something cannot come from nothing. There has to be a necesary being which exist by nature.

that was mor eor less the same theory as your second point, and again equates to proof of nothing other than philosophical thought.

4) Gradation of Being - we can see that there are different levels of beings.... men, animals, plants, inanimate objects..... there must be a source of being, a source which we all came from, and no effect can be greater than it's cause. There has to be a supreme being, some self existing being, greater than us, that put into motion the cause we are all contingent upon. Still with me?

yes, im still with you, because you're reiterating the same point endlessly and trying to make it look different.

5) Final Causality - Every being has a purpose. Even non-rational beings like animals act for an end. But these things cannot direct themselves. They don't have the ablitily to choose what they are working for, they do it out of instinct. Where do they get this instinct? This infused knowledge. Some being had to determine to what end at these things were working. There has to be some sort of ultimate designer.

see, or you could look at it from a scientific point of view. which would suggest evolution, and experience, etc. this PROOVES nothing, but again is merely an extension of your beliefs.

That's the best I can do from memory.... I think I hit all the logic parts..... This is the cliffnotes version..... you want to read the actual thing it's a book called "Summa Theologica" and it's written by Thomas Aquinas, and based on the philosiphy of Aristotle..... have fun..... it's quite long but if you have any questions on any/all of the ^ it'll be in there fully explained, kapeish? It proves for a fact though logic the existence of one all powerful,


Oh! and if you read the book, you don't have to go to a priest or anything! yay for you! Just what you were looking for! Yay!

the five points are causation, contingency, perfection, motion and purpose, just to clarify.

and using philosophy to try and prove a point is a waste of time. because although aquinas seems plausible at first glance, his argument is in no way decisive, and is CERTAINLY not proof of any christian god. in fact, it is genreeally accepted among philosophers that aquinas did not PROVE the existence of god. it is merely a way to harness reason to support religious belief, nothing more than an idea.

even if we except that a chain of events cannot extend back indefinately (moot point, anyway), it is not a logical garuntee that the so called ultimate cause is anything we want to call god, and there is certainly no good reason to assume that it is god in the christina sense, i.e benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.

furthermore, aquinas himself did no tbelieve that his five points would lead to a full understanding of god, bu tthat it came to us incomplete, through analogy and negation, rather than anything solid on which to base a claim of 'proof'.

ultimately, you are a christian, and BELIEVE in god. nothing more, nothing less. trying to prove his existence, especially from a Thomist perspective, when such points have been done to death is not particularly helpful to anyone.

and once again I would like to reiterate:

as for what you are reiterating, claiming that his point was 'horribly made' is defensive rubbish. what he said was intelligent and logical. get over the fact that religion doesnt equate to automatic garuntee that people will think that you are right, so we can all behave less childishly.

[ghetosmurph]

ludicrous. why on earth is it not possible for random chemical reactions to create life. the answer you have is simply that you believe oherwise, which is useless in debate.

well, then what do you purpose made the chemicals randomly decide to react, if they hadn't been reacting before that..... in order for those chemicals to react, something had to happen..... that is the point, and following it all back you reach 1 point..... that does not have any reflection on what I believe. It is logic.

and using philosophy to try and prove a point is a waste of time. because although aquinas seems plausible at first glance, his argument is in no way decisive, and is CERTAINLY not proof of any christian god. in fact, it is genreeally accepted among philosophers that aquinas did not PROVE the existence of god. it is merely a way to harness reason to support religious belief, nothing more than an idea.

even if we except that a chain of events cannot extend back indefinately (moot point, anyway), it is not a logical garuntee that the so called ultimate cause is anything we want to call god, and there is certainly no good reason to assume that it is god in the christina sense, i.e benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient.

furthermore, aquinas himself did no tbelieve that his five points would lead to a full understanding of god, bu tthat it came to us incomplete, through analogy and negation, rather than anything solid on which to base a claim of 'proof'.

ultimately, you are a christian, and BELIEVE in god. nothing more, nothing less. trying to prove his existence, especially from a Thomist perspective, when such points have been done to death is not particularly helpful to anyone.

as for what you are reiterating, claiming that his point was 'horribly made' is defensive rubbish. what he said was intelligent and logical. get over the fact that religion doesnt equate to automatic garuntee that people will think that you are right, so we can all behave less childishly.

ok...... apparently you have studied this a lot more than me, so I will conceed to your point..... There is no formal proof for God...... My reiterated point is that this has no place in this debate...... start another debate, I don't care, but THIS debate was about proving the existence of Christ.... not proving that he was God..... not proving the existence of God.... His entire point was off topic in the first place. He couldn't attcak my argument so he tried to attack my beliefs....... was his argument logical and intelligent? sure, but it was (and "horribly made" may have been the wrond set of words... let me rephrase) not "validly true" because it was based on false notions of the Christian faith. So because he based it on the false notions of Christian beliefs, it holds no weight, and even my conceding that there is no way to prove the existence of God does not falsify any of my previous claims.

Even given all of that, IT IS STILL OFF TOPIC. My beliefs have no bearing on the historical proof for the existence of a man named Jesus Christ. There is historical proof, and historians of the day recognize that. If someone wants to challenge the lack of historical proof, thats fine and dandy. If someone wants to have a theological discussion on the existence of God, the beliefs of Christianity, or the divinity of Christ, they should start a new debate. Those discusssions in no way have any effect on this debate. THAT is the point I have been trying to make. And it is a valid one at that.

there is also no concerete proof of the existance of jesus.

beyond the occasional writings which may have been influenced by various things. ergo, not to be trusted.

That is your belief, not the concensus of today's historians. Come back with something more concrete than your feelings or opinions. Your opinion proves nothing. The facts I laid out do, unless you can prove them wrong (with more facts, not opinions).

[*I Shot JFK*]

Your getting hung up on the progression of the debate. just because it began as a debate about jesus, doesnt mean it has to stay that way.

and also, i dont understand why you think his basis fo rargument regarding faith vs proof was misconceived... faith IS a foundation of any religion, including christianity. if i hadnt lent my copy of the bible to my brother, i would provide quotes to back up what im saying, and justin's point, but as it is, you'll have to wait.

[ghetosmurph]

^ b/c this is the basis of his argument on "faith vs. truth"......

because of your faith?

you can't know becuase of faith. it violates the definition of faith.

faith is not knowing, but trusting anyways.

ergo, if you KNOW the things in the bible are true, you have no faith in jesus.

if you have faith in jesus, you don't know whether or not he's real, but CHOOSE to trust and believe.

and that's what gives jesus power.

you do that yourself when you question the inability to prove his nonexistance.

and yet you ignore me when i say this:

if you can prove jesus exists, you have no faith, and suck as a christian. so stop trying.

question: is it easier to believe jesus was the son of god if you know there was a man about the time named jesus who was prominent enough for records of him to be made?

if the answer is in any form yes, then proving the existance of a person named jesus is a lack of faith. seeking the proof is a lack of faith, and seeking the facts is a lack of faith.

and if i'm not mistaken, god's power comes from faith and faith alone. that's why he refuses to prove his existance- correct? he could make miracles all day, but then people owuldn't beleive out of faith.

becuase faith isn't about that.

don't worry about my logic. it's infallible. that's becuase it's not mine. it's what i've heard all the time in these debates. tha'ts it's about faith. that the reason god doesn't proove his existance is because his power comes from faith.

OK, now I'm not saying faith isn't an integral part and one of the founding principals of chirstian beliefs. It is. He was claiming that because I can prove the existance of Jesus Christ as a person, that I suck at being a christian because I goes against my beliefs. He claimed that if we try to establish the truth of anything in the bible then we are violating our faith b/c it goes aganst the definition of faith. He also claimed that we believed God gets his power from our faith and that is why God refuses to reveal himself to us........ And you are going to tell me that this idea isn't misconceived? OK, then I challenge you to go snatch that bible from your brother and try and pick out some obscure quote that supports any of that bull crap. His argument was not made as a thought question, it was a derragotory attack on christians who were attempting to defend one of the founding principal of our faith, the existence of Jesus, by claiming that they were contradicting themselves by even trying. Problem is, we aren't contradicting ourselves by trying.......

Christianity has never been about total faith.... it is about faith based on scripture and tradition.... the tradition part kinda got screwed over by martin luther in the protestant revolt, so now many christian denominations base their faith solely on scripture and concience.... but it has never been about total faith.... and proving something true that you believed to be true for centuries does not undermine your faith, it strengthens it.....

No, proving the existance of Jesus as a person does not make it any easier to believe that he is the Son of God..... The two are in no way connected...... Just because I exist, does that make it any easier for you to believe that I am actually the prime minister of timbuktu and I have buried a nuclear warhead in your backyard? please, believing the divinity of christ is not made any easier by the awarenes of his actual his actual existence..... I am aware Mohammed existed though prominent records..... does that make it easier for me to believe that he is really Allah's greatest prophet, and that the muslim religion is in actuality the one true religion? No.

For starters, you are mistaken..... completely mistaken if that what you think christians believe..... God's power doesn't come from anywhere.... he is omnipotent, all powerful, there is no other like him, he created us to know love and serve him and be happy with him in heaven, or maybe just because he was bored, but no matter why he created us, he did. And logically, how can his power, which he used to create us, be contingent upon the "faith"of his creations..... it just doesn't make sense.......

Next, he doesn't refuse to prove his existence to us....... he tried..... he appeared to some, he sent his prophets out to tell the people what he had revealed, he even sent his own son as a sign of the new covenant between God and man. But, God gave us free will and so we have the choice to believe in his existance or not to..... why? I don't know, maybe he just wanted to make things interesting, maybe he didn't just want a bunch of mindless zombies in heaven.... No matter his reasons, just because everyone doesn't recognize the signs that doesn't mean he didn't give us a lack of proof for his existance..... And yeah he could make miracles all day, and shock and awe all of us into believing...... but if he did that we wouldn't have the free will to choose to follow him..... It has to do with the fact that God doesn't want to encroach on the rights he gave us as human beings, such as free will...... it's not that he needs us to believe in him to give him power..... He wants the reason for us being in heaven to be because we want to be in heaven with him, not because he scared the shit out of us..... If he did that, what would be the point of creating us with free will in the first place......
Where the heck do you get off calling hearsay infallible? That is insulting..... Go talk to a priest or reverend and take whoever you heard that from with you..... Get yourselves set straight from an authoritative source please.

This was my response. You want to try and get facts from the bible to try and prove this wrong too?

[*I Shot JFK*]

my borther and his bibl eare at camp for a week, so i'll wait.

but his pinciple is simply TRUE. if you KNOW something/someone exists, then you DONT have faith. that is a logical certainty, not an attack on anyone.

[ghetosmurph]

*smacks self in forehead*
ok, and you pick out the only thing he got right..... the definition..... I agree, if you can prove something you dont have faith..... but our faith in Jesus isn't in his existence..... it is in his divinity of Jesus, and the existence of God. Even Jews and Moslems believe in the existence of Jesus. Why? B/c it is know historical fact that he lived, and has been for centuries. He got the principal right but his application of it is completely whack. The Principal wasn't misconcieved, but his argument was. I could say "All cows are herbivores, and all cows are blue, ergo some herbivores are blue". Now that argument is based on the true statement, "all cows are herbivores". But in making my argument I also made a false staement, "all cows are blue", which make the entire statement flase and would be a minsconcieved argument. It is the exact same as saying "Christianity is based on faith, and it is easier to believe jesus was the son of god if you know there was a man about the time named jesus who was prominent enough for records of him to be made, ergo proving the existance of a person named jesus is a lack of faith. seeking the proof is a lack of faith, and seeking the facts is a lack of faith." Which was the entirety of his argument. Yes Christianity is based on faith, but knowing Jesus existed doesn't make believing in his divinity any easier. It doesn't undermine our faith or beliefs to be able to prove the existence of Jesus........ and I'm kinda confused..... you are going to use quotes from the bible to back up what point? The fact that faith is an intergral part of Christianity, which we have already established? Cause other than that, you really have made no point......

[*I Shot JFK*]

If you look at Nate's argument, it is far from aknown historical fact that he existed. That would be the point, as you have been so keen to observe.

and as for the faith thing, we are wroking at cross purposes.

[oXMuhNirvanaXo]

Faith.

All about Faith.

[ghetosmurph]

If you look at Nate's argument, it is far from aknown historical fact that he existed. That would be the point, as you have been so keen to observe.

and as for the faith thing, we are wroking at cross purposes.

If you had read my argument you would have realized that it is considered known historical fact, and I gave the evidence to back it up, Mr. Keen Observation. I gave the evidence used by histrorians which shows why they consider the gospels historically reliable sources, and If the gospels are considered historically reliable, you have historical proof. Don't be so quick to call the kettle black. But thanks for bringing us back on topic.

What do you mean we are working at cross purposes? What are you going to prove? That being able to prove the existence of christ means I "suck at being a christian"? That is the pont you are currently defending.

[*I Shot JFK*]

i DID read your posts. all of them. they were long winded. i happen to credit nate's. thats all.

no... actually, thats the point that brought me to the debate, not what i am defending. what i will say is that seeking to prove christ's divinity indicates a lack of faith. that's all, again.

[ghetosmurph]

I completely agree with you on that. Seeking to prove Christ's divinity would indicate a lack of faith.

[*I Shot JFK*]

so would seeing to prove the existence of god.

[ghetosmurph]

agreed..... but then would you say thomas aquinas had less faith b/c of his philosophical arguments for the existence of God? There is a fine line there and I just don't know where it gets drawn......

[sadolakced acid]

you can't prove a man is divine untill you can prove there was a man.

look at the quote:

"a philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that doesn't exist. a theologist finds the cat"

now, ignoring the joke about religion, think about it.

the first step to proving the cat is black is proving there is a cat.


sure jesus was divine. in a little book called the bible- in the same way harry potter is a wizard.

ergo, proving jesus existed is the same as proving harry potter exists- it's the first step.

[ghetosmurph]

you can't prove a man is divine untill you can prove there was a man.

look at the quote:

"a philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that doesn't exist. a theologist finds the cat"

now, ignoring the joke about religion, think about it.

the first step to proving the cat is black is proving there is a cat.
sure jesus was divine. in a little book called the bible- in the same way harry potter is a wizard.

ergo, proving jesus existed is the same as proving harry potter exists- it's the first step.

No..... while it is possible to prove that the cat is not black by proving that there is no cat, you cannot use the fact that the cat exists to prove that the cat is black. The Cat not being black necessarily follows from the fact that there is no cat, but you cannot say the inverse is true. You can prove that there is a cat, but you cannot deduce in anyway from that what color the cat is...... Lets go back to your blind man in a room example. If the blind man in the room can prove that the cat doesn't exist, than the fact that the cat is not black necessarily follows. But if the blind man find the cat, and is holding it, he still has no way of deducing whether the cat is black or not. Likewise, while proving Jesus did not exist can prove Jesus is not divine, proving that Jesus did exist cannot be used in any way to prove Jesus' divinity. This is because of the universal and particular natures of the terms..... It's like illicit major and illicit minor. While you can prove a particular from a universal, you cannot prove the universal from the particular...... It's the same type of concept.

[msladyliberty]

I'm a pentacostal christian, my mom's a pastor, and all my godparents are pastors as well.

In our christianity, we're led to believe everything that is written in the bible, because the bible is truth.

But it has been known in history that books have been revised over the years. And the bible is known to have many many revised versions of it. I think the reason why we have many different christianities is because others have revised the book to establish law within the people. If there wasn't a "book of law" or "morals" then I'm sure there wouldn't have been a civilized society.

I don't know if he existed. I just believe in him and all that he stands for.
(I'm so busted if my mom read this)

Existed or Not, the belief of him has created a civilized society.

[forza]

you can't prove a man is divine untill you can prove there was a man.

look at the quote:

"a philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that doesn't exist. a theologist finds the cat"

now, ignoring the joke about religion, think about it.

the first step to proving the cat is black is proving there is a cat.


sure jesus was divine. in a little book called the bible- in the same way harry potter is a wizard.

ergo, proving jesus existed is the same as proving harry potter exists- it's the first step.

I still don't see how that stands up. It's not even a first step, really. His existence can't be used to prove his divinity, just as the cat's existence can't be a proving factor of its color..

[sadolakced acid]

i like how you both picked my weakest arguement to attack. i provide many, and you choose only one. let's try again. i'll leave that one off, since you don't really get it. there is no cat, so you can't prove it's black.

i'm not expecting you guys to think logically about this, but please do try.

to prove divinity, you must first prove existance.

i believe jesus to be like harry potter. divine, like harry is a wizard. and also fictional.

in order to convince me of jesus's divinity in real life, you must convince me of jesus's existance in real life.

please, kryo, come and put me out of my misery.

[deealiganga]

i am I.N.C. . and i believe that Christ was a man. =)

[*I Shot JFK*]

^ if you have nothing of value to add, go away.

i like how you both picked my weakest arguement to attack. i provide many, and you choose only one. let's try again. i'll leave that one off, since you don't really get it. there is no cat, so you can't prove it's black.

i'm not expecting you guys to think logically about this, but please do try.

to prove divinity, you must first prove existance.

i believe jesus to be like harry potter. divine, like harry is a wizard. and also fictional.

in order to convince me of jesus's divinity in real life, you must convince me of jesus's existance in real life.

please, kryo, come and put me out of my misery.

see, justin, the thing is, your argument works on a philisophical level only if we take it that, if jesus existed he was absolutely divine.

now, if i believe a man called jesus existed, but not that he was divine, your argument doesnt work. it is perfectly plausible that jesus is a bonifide historical figure. if that is

that's where i totally lost my train of thought due to heat, so i'll try again.

at the end of the day, what im driving at is this. yes, proving jesus exists is ABSOLUTELY the first step in proving his divinity. so what? accepting that he exists is not an indication that one is trying to prove his divinty (thereby negating faith), because one can prove his existence, and NOT BELIEVE he is divine.

and frankly justin, you cant complain that people picked on the weakest part of your argument, because as a whole it a) wasn't particularly stron gpoint overall, and b) telling people off for commenting on a point which you yourself posted with the intention of debate is just childish, and you can do better.

---

oh, and to answer ghettosmurf's earlier point, yes i would say that setting out to prove the existence of god, philisophically or otherwise, indicates a lack of complete faith in anyone, aquinas included.

[sadolakced acid]

then prove harry potter is a wizard, in real life.

james, i can complain when they ignore the rest of my arguement, and don't do a terriblly good job of breaking down my arguement.

your arguements (plural your) all assume that jesus existed.

however, if someone does not believe jesus exists, they cannot believe jesus is divine. ergo, in order to prove jesus is divine to them, jesus must first be proven to exist. therefore, any attempt to prove jesus's existance as a man undermines faith in his divinity.

[forza]

then prove harry potter is a wizard, in real life.

james, i can complain when they ignore the rest of my arguement, and don't do a terriblly good job of breaking down my arguement.

your arguements (plural your) all assume that jesus existed.

however, if someone does not believe jesus exists, they cannot believe jesus is divine. ergo, in order to prove jesus is divine to them, jesus must first be proven to exist. therefore, any attempt to prove jesus's existance as a man undermines faith in his divinity.

Your argument wasn't extensive enough in the first place to really refute anything but your cat analogy. But to humor you, I'll try and show you why your untenable, A leads to Z argument doesn't stand up.

You've quoted in previous arguments that seeking to prove Jesus' existence as a mortal man is the defiant "first step" to proving his divinity. In this last argument you've said that if someone doesn't believe Jesus existed, they cannot believe Jesus was the son of God, which is fair enough. Where your argument goes awry is in your assumption that the person seeking to prove he existed 2,000 years ago is "undermining faith in his divinity."

In my studies of it, I've noticed that the Bible only requires that Christians believe and have faith in Jesus' status as a perfect being. The only proviso to being a Christian is believing he is the son of God before he returns on judgment day. The "first step" that you say contumaciously screws oneself out of true faith is not frowned upon by Christian doctrine, only by a thin, lapse-ridden strand of your logic that I still have a problem deciphering.

So, if you look for the proof (that is going to be there, whether you seek it out or not), you're not breaking any rules. It almost makes sense to confirm his existence. Why, you ask? Because it's provable. As stated before, you can't prove the important aspect of Christianity, thereby requiring a little bit of faith. You seem to think that being a Christian requires a quart of faith when one may suffice with a pint.

[sadolakced acid]

and yet you still ignore the harry potter arguement.

to prove jesus is a perfect being you must also prove he is a being.

[forza]

^ I agree with that, but unfortunately for your presumption that one is less faithful and less worthy in the eyes of Christian doctrine, so would the Christian religion.

[*I Shot JFK*]

justin, if i go out into the streets and find a guy named harry potter who is in no way wizardly, will that help at all?

yes, everyone agrees that to prove he is divine, you must prove he exists, becaue that is common sense. you cant argue with that. well, not well, i would imagine. the thing which i really dont understand is why you seem to say that proof of existence will necessarily lead to an attempt to proove his divinity. it's logically fine, but it doesnt hold up practically.

[ghetosmurph]

then prove harry potter is a wizard, in real life.

james, i can complain when they ignore the rest of my arguement, and don't do a terriblly good job of breaking down my arguement.
your arguements (plural your) all assume that jesus existed.

however, if someone does not believe jesus exists, they cannot believe jesus is divine. ergo, in order to prove jesus is divine to them, jesus must first be proven to exist. therefore, any attempt to prove jesus's existance as a man undermines faith in his divinity.

Ok, say for argument's sake I went out and proved a man named Harry Potter actually existed. He was a professor of midevil history at Oxford from 1846 to 1878. His existence can be historically proved though birth records, school faculty records, testimonies of people that remember him, etc. Does that make it any easier to believe that this man was actually a wizard, trained at a mystical place called Hogwarts for 7 years? No, it doesn't......

Here..... try this..... take out a peice of paper and a writing implement. Draw a fairly large circle on the page, with another little circle inside of it. Now label the large circle "existence" and the little circle inside of it "divinity". You can see that in order to prove Jesus is divine you have to prove Jesus existed, a perfectly correct statement. But you can also see that proving Jesus existence doesn't mean you can prove Jesus' divinity...... say draw another little circle that is in the divinity circle..... label that proof........ if you were to prove jesus was divine you would have to prove Jesus existed....... now draw another little circle this time in the existence circle and don't let it touch the divinity circle... also label that proof....... If you proved Jesus existed it doesn't neccessarily conclude, that he was divine..... do you see how this works?

No our arguments do not assume Jesus existed...... our arguments are based on the fact that you can prove Jesus' existence without necessarily proving Jesus' divinity..... Just like in with the little circles.....

**//EDIT//******


hahahaa..... ok here you go......

Harry Potter, Massachusetts


When people walk into Harry Potter's funeral home in Massachusetts, they are often surprised to be greeted by a funeral director with such a famous name.

"I think it helps lighten the mood," said Harry, who is a co-owner and director at Potter Funeral Service Inc. where he runs its New Bedford funeral home. "I have a small Harry Potter figurine on my desk and it helps to put people at ease.

"I get a lot of recognition about my name. Over the years, I've been interviewed on several radio stations, been in magazines and appeared on TV three times, including nationwide once. I've read the books and watched the movies, and collected various paraphernalia."

Aged 50, Harry started in the funeral business when he was 19 and has remained in the job since then for all but six years. The business was originally co-founded in 1892 by Harry L. Potter – Harry's great-grandfather.

Harry would never consider changing his name but admits that he sometimes hesitates when introducing himself.

"There have been problems ordering things by telephone and making reservations because people think it is a crank call," he said. "I usually get a long pause and then they ask if it really is my name. I always speak with these people about the coincidence and we always have a good laugh. I was once invited to speak to a church children's group. I have also gotten autograph requests. In general, it has added a bright spot to my life. I have even been given free movie tickets and received special attention when visiting some places."

Or how about this one....... even better......

Harry Potter, London


Being called Harry Potter has been a distinct advantage for Harry Potter from London, who is a barrister in criminal law, a qualified Church of England priest, a published author and a local government councilor.

"It's not a problem in the least," said the 50-year-old. "In fact, it is very beneficial. I’m a barrister and it helps me in court. It helps me to win clients, and judges can't believe it when they hear I'm Harry Potter. It's a wonderful ice-breaker - everyone has a laugh and then we get down to business. Everyone knows who I am in the courts - that's a help.

"The first Harry Potter book didn't really change anything for me. The second one became a huge hit and then things changed. Personally, I think the stories are OK but they don't compare to Tolkein or Kipling.

"Before becoming a barrister, I was prison chaplain and I still preach in churches. When the vicar introduces me, I can see everyone look up. Children, who normally leave after Sunday School, refuse to leave the church because they want to listen to me. It's most peculiar - you could say it's bizarre but benign."

Being Harry Potter has several other advantages. "I ran for election as a local government councilor and I went up against the mayor," said Harry, who has also worked as a college chaplain at Cambridge University "I won quite easily and I know he was saying he lost because he was up against Harry Potter. I would campaign by knocking on doors and introducing myself. I had dozens of children following me."

Harry's prized possession is a hand-written letter from JK Rowling, creator of the fictional Harry Potter. "When the second book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, was published, I decided to write to JK because I too was working in chambers full of secrets at the law courts," he said. "She wrote a lovely letter back explaining the origins of the name - her neighbors called Potter and Harry being her favorite boys' name. It's probably worth thousands of pounds."

London's Harry Potter is also a published author with three history books to his name - Hanging in Judgement (1993), Bloodfeud, and Edinburgh Under Seige (2003).

"When I was working as prison chaplain, I met many prisoners with life sentences who would have been executed under old laws," he said. "Someone asked me to write something about my work and realized that no one had ever written about capital punishment since the last British execution in 1964, so I wrote the book.

"The other books were inspired by my nostalgia for Scotland - I originally come from Glasgow. Bloodfeud and Edinburgh Under Seige gave me excuses to visit Edinburgh castle and explore. Again, I realized nobody had written about the siege which lasted from 1571 to 1573, so I decided to do it."

There are loads more at this site: http://www.abebooks.com/docs/harry-potter/biographies.shtml

[sadolakced acid]

what you have done is the equivalent of me finding a man named jesus christ and claiming that jesus was the son of god.

let's look at your circles.

there are two circles in a larger field. before you prove or disprove jesus's existance, possibility is that entire field. when you prove he existed as a man, possibility narrows to only include the larger circle.

becuase the probablility of jesus being divine increases if it is given that jesus existed, it undermines faith.

if you were to prove there was a harry potter who lived at number 4, privet drive with the dursleys, then it would be easier to prove he were a wizard.

likewise, finding a man named jesus christ proves nothing.

but finding a man named jesus christ who had 12 apostles and threw moneylenders out of the temple, was crucified, etc. helps to validate the bible- thus helping to validate it's claim that jesus was divine.

[forza]

what you
becuase the probablility of jesus being divine increases if it is given that jesus existed, it undermines faith.

In whose mind? That is founded neither by Christian doctrine, nor by most common sense.

[ghetosmurph]

what you have done is the equivalent of me finding a man named jesus christ and claiming that jesus was the son of god.

That was the point..... the two aren't related........

let's look at your circles.

there are two circles in a larger field. before you prove or disprove jesus's existance, possibility is that entire field. when you prove he existed as a man, possibility narrows to only include the larger circle.

becuase the probablility of jesus being divine increases if it is given that jesus existed, it undermines faith.

You missed the point of the circles completely...... they have nothing to do with probability...... It's called a Venn diagram...... OK, label the big circle animals and label the little circle unicorns....... you are telling me that because animals exist, the probability of unicorns existing increases? Unicorns are the perfect example...... there is no proof for the existence of unicorns just like there is no proof for the divinity of Christ.... it would require faith to believe in either...... it has nothing to do with probability...... it has to do with the fact that you can prove that prove animals exist while in no way helping to prove the existence of unicorns.

[sadolakced acid]

i do not believe you understand probablility then, if that's what you say.

okay, if you want to use unicorns.

say there is an invisible unicorn. that's pink.

is it easier to believe there is a invisible pink unicorn when you have irrefutable proof of the existance of invisible unicorns?

[ghetosmurph]

ok well In order for this to be done fairly, using invisible unicorns...... you would have to say that invisible unicorns are only supposed to be blue and green, but some people believe that there once was an invisible pink unicorn....... B/c divinity is not something normal....... Men are mortal, except some people believe that the son of God came down and became man to save us from out sins....... same thing....... so using the correct theory on invisible unicorns.......

If you know for a fact that invisible unicorns exist and that they are only blue and green, does that make it easier for you to believe that their is a pink invisible unicorn? No, it would require faith

[*decadence*]

OF COURSE! JESUS IS A MOD.

.. yeah, so hate me. I know all the debate rules and such, but I just couldn't help myself.

[ghetosmurph]

^ Make a point please. Spamming is not appreciated.

[sadolakced acid]

ok well In order for this to be done fairly, using invisible unicorns...... you would have to say that invisible unicorns are only supposed to be blue and green, but some people believe that there once was an invisible pink unicorn....... B/c divinity is not something normal....... Men are mortal, except some people believe that the son of God came down and became man to save us from out sins....... same thing....... so using the correct theory on invisible unicorns.......

If you know for a fact that invisible unicorns exist and that they are only blue and green, does that make it easier for you to believe that their is a pink invisible unicorn? No, it would require faith

your logic works in funny ways.

you are tiring me.

out of curiosity, how old are you?

[*I Shot JFK*]

anna is above the law. silence, freak.

[femmefatale4160]

Actual man. No question. Whether or not you believe that he was the son of God, he existed. There are mountains of historical evidence to back it up.

ok well In order for this to be done fairly, using invisible unicorns...... you would have to say that invisible unicorns are only supposed to be blue and green, but some people believe that there once was an invisible pink unicorn....... B/c divinity is not something normal....... Men are mortal, except some people believe that the son of God came down and became man to save us from out sins....... same thing....... so using the correct theory on invisible unicorns.......

If you know for a fact that invisible unicorns exist and that they are only blue and green, does that make it easier for you to believe that their is a pink invisible unicorn? No, it would require faith

Whoa...trippy...

[*I Shot JFK*]

hmm. i might have been converted to the church of the prancing unicorn... at least it would be pretty