Was Jesus married?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I find it odd how atheists say there is no proof of the existance of Jesus, and then try to go out and prove that he didn't exist using pretty much the same evidence.

 

Just because there is no evidence that he did exist, doesn't prove that he didn't exist. Atheists are as bad as Baptists.

[Guest SP-1]

There's actually pretty good evidence that he did exist. Very good historical documentation. People just tend to ignore it or go after jaded resources that do everything they can to ignore the evidence.

[Vern Gagne 0]

This was brought up before, but couldn't you find the Census records from that time?

[Nighthawk 0]

Man, those atheists are just barking up the wrong tree. The existence of Jesus is not the hill to die on.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Atheists are as bad as Baptists

 

Them's fightin' words.

[chaosrage 0]

That's something else. If Jesus was *really* performing miracles left and right like the bible says, why would the jews have rejected him? They were there afterall, why should we think we know more than they did at the time?

 

Well for starters he was a threat to the whole power structure of the religious leaders. They were looking for any reason to disprove him b/c if he was who he said, they were going to lose power.

And if he was going around doing things like turning water into wine and walking on water, how could they disprove him?

[chaosrage 0]

Actually, if you want to get truly technical, the only language that is widely believed to be inserted into the account of Josephus is . . . two half-sentences or so.  There are actually references to jesus that are not what a Christian trying to enhance the work would have left unchanged or inserted themselves.  You can tell what might have been added and what wouldn't have been.

Actually, if you had read those links, you would know the only launguage thats widely believed to be inserted is..... everything he said about Christ. Might have something to do with the fact how once again the christians at the time who read him and rewrote his accounts said he NEVER mentioned Jesus. The first was Eusebius who was known to be a liar and a cheat and admit to supressing everything that could hurt Christianity. He wrote propaganda, not history. Some evidence.

 

if you'd really like, I can go through the account of Jesus written by Josephus (as I have it here), with an argument from Edwin Yamauchi.

 

Go ahead. It'd be nice if you gave me an actual argument instead of listing the guy's credentials. I could do the same thing with Christian bible historians, people who wrote books and dedicated their lives to building credibility for the gospels, yet still are honest enough to admit it's probably fake. Such as Rev Lardner, "I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius."

[chaosrage 0]

Also, an argument against something based on it being written 50 years later is kind of poor considering most historical material deemed trustworthy is written quite a while longer after the fact.

It's not trustworthy because at best it's based on fourth and fifth hand accounts and that's IF it's genuinely real in the first place. If that counts as evidence, well then there's evidence for Hercules too just because people wrote about him. Along with any other myth. For Alexander the Great, we still have plenty of first-hand records from many different cultures and references from his time, even if we don't have any eyewitness accounts.

[chaosrage 0]

You're using Jesus' death to disprove his existence?!

Heh?

 

[chaosrage 0]

I find it odd how atheists say there is no proof of the existance of Jesus, and then try to go out and prove that he didn't exist using pretty much the same evidence.

 

Just because there is no evidence that he did exist, doesn't prove that he didn't exist. Atheists are as bad as Baptists.

You can't prove for a fact anyone doesn't exist. But since there's no historical evidence for Jesus, and the same story with the exact same details had been written before, you can conclude that Jesus was simply a myth, not a real person. Kinda the same way people conclude Zeus, Thor, and Mythra were not real.

[chaosrage 0]

There's actually pretty good evidence that he did exist. Very good historical documentation.

You keep saying that but you don't prove anything. One account 70 years after the supposed event is hardly "very good historical documentation"

[Perfxion 0]

This is a pointless debate. You can't truely prove one way or another the existance of Christ. There is a point when faith takes over. Science can only take a person so far. There is debate Shakespeare was ONE PERSON writing those plays. Now that was only 500 years ago. Try adding another 1500 years to prove a person lived. Now, the bible itself was starting to be written a 1000 years before. Now, lets go with this. You are trying to find the existance or try to disprove a person who lived a common life, who tried to help people, who by all reglions one of the nicest and most humble person EVER TO WALK THIS EARTH is going to be hard. Jesus was not a king. He was not a military leader. He was a man on a mission from god. So info on him won't be fully out there. His death was against the ways the Romans did trails. As I stated, believe what you want. Science and Tech can only go so far, sometimes it takes faith.

 

Atheists fighting against Christians is going to solve NOTHING in this case. You have a better chance for Al Sharpton joining with The Klan. And using his death to prove he never existed? Well, if a person dies they must have lived. If they lived, they EXISTED!

[chaosrage 0]

This is a pointless debate. You can't truely prove one way or another the existance of Christ.

 

What did I just say? You can't prove anyone didn't exist. It's just the evidence seems to be leaning more in that direction.

 

Jesus was not a king. He was not a military leader. He was a man on a mission from god. So info on him won't be fully out there. His death was against the ways the Romans did trails. As I stated, believe what you want. Science and Tech can only go so far, sometimes it takes faith.

 

Yes. And he started one of the world's biggest religions. So I'd assume he'd have enough influence for some people to record his name down before the end of the first century.

 

And using his death to prove he never existed? Well, if a person dies they must have lived. If they lived, they EXISTED!

 

What the hell are you talking about? I forgot to write "after he supposedly died" and just wrote after he died, heh. You should still be able to figure out what I'm saying.

[Guest Nanks]

Jesus was not a king.

Well actually, he just about was. He was of the House of David.

 

 

Furthermore, I really can't recommend The Da Vinci Code enough. Seriously great read. The stand-alone prequel, Angels and Demons is really good stuff too. Pick them both up.

[Guest SP-1]

Wasn't here over the weekend, I was on the road. I don't have to the time at this particular moment to sit down and type it all out but with a majority of what I'm drawing from here with me it won't be long before I bump the thread with a proper response.

 

But, I will add that Paul was around and writing the epistles well within Christ's generation. Paul was present at at least one hostile encounter with one of the apostles that I can think of off the top of my head. The gospels themselves aren't all that far removed, either. Not very many historical accounts are written that soon.

 

And no, I'm not dodging your rebuttal about Josephus, that will come in my next reply.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Paul never met Jesus himself though. Keep that in mind. That's why I didn't use his writings as proof of Jesus existance. He did live during his lifetime.

 

And yeah, he and Peter didn't get along too well.

 

The gospels themselves aren't all that far removed, either.

 

John is pretty far removed, but it is also considered the most inaccurate. When John was written the authors certainly knew of the other three. It is speculated that Mark & Matthew, the two earliest, were written independently. Mark is dated from somewhere between 15 and 40 years after Jesus' death. Certainly not very long in historical terms.

Edited November 10, 2003 by Kahran Ramsus