There is no proof that Jesus existed

[*PhilHos*]

(07-13-2018, 02:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Agreed.  If one can follow the sources and verify them it works as a good repository for information and links.

(07-13-2018, 02:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Except, unlike your example, he had no way of verifying the Gospels.  We can't even verify the original work of Tacitus (although it is general accepted as genuine).  And, from what I read, he was a small boy during the time frame he was writing about.  He probably had heard stories and knew of the gospels and put two and two together?  

The point being that you can't just say it's not a good source because it aligns with other sources.

(07-13-2018, 02:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: The translation I read said this after saying he was put to death by Pilate: "...and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment,..."  I wonder if he means he DOESN'T believe there was a resurrection, or simple has no proof of it?

Yeah, I think it means he doesn't believe the resurrection. From what I remember, Tacitus was not a Christian, Christian sympathizer, Christian apologist or what have you. I think he was just recording what happened.

(07-13-2018, 02:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: There is as much "proof" for that as "proof" that Jesus was real or the son of god.

But there are theories.

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artsculture/Religion/689744-1051562-yiwuw8/index.html
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520234000/the-messiah-before-jesus

And there's this:

https://forums.catholic.com/t/jesus-wasnt-the-only-messiah-during-his-time/195519




That poster goes to say:



As if is a definitive fact.

As I said to someone else, I'm laying a trap for DA. I bet you can figure out what it is.

(07-13-2018, 02:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well we know Pilate existed.  Or someone by that name did at the right time.  But the passage you cite give us no other information about how "Chrisus" died or why.  Just that he inspired followers.

How many other people who would have been called "Christus" were put to death by Pilate and raised a group of people who would eventually call themselves Christians?

[GMDino]

(07-13-2018, 02:25 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How many other people who would have been called "Christus" were put to death by Pilate and raised a group of people who would eventually call themselves Christians?

I get that conclusion.  I'm just adding that if he's going of oral stories and then matching them up to the gospels he made an assumption.

Somewhere in the back of my head I remember reading that the Roman's kept pretty good records of their executions but that Jesus' wasn't found in them?  

this whole thread is rattling things long buried in my brain that I can't remember 100%!  LMAO!

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2018, 02:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: I get that conclusion.  I'm just adding that if he's going of oral stories and then matching them up to the gospels he made an assumption.

Somewhere in the back of my head I remember reading that the Roman's kept pretty good records of their executions but that Jesus' wasn't found in them?  

this whole thread is rattling things long buried in my brain that I can't remember 100%!  LMAO!

So more than a week ago.

[fredtoast]

Again, I am not an expert, but I remember the way the analyzed some quotes that were attributed to Josephus (or maybe Pliny).

the ones that mirrored the tales from the gospels were considered questionable, but some other comments he made about what happened to Christ were different from the popular religious dogma so they were considered to be from other sources and more reliable.

To me it seems likely that there was a man called Jesus who was crucified simple because the story spread so quickly after his death and there is no one source that seemed to make it all up.  Instead it came from multiple sources.  If it was all made up by one guy then I think that person would be more prominent in the history of Jesus.

Not saying that all of the claims about Jesus are actually true.  But I do believe he actually existed.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2018, 02:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So more than a week ago.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-13-2018, 02:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again, I am not an expert, but I remember the way the analyzed some quotes that were attributed to Josephus (or maybe Pliny).

the ones that mirrored the tales from the gospels were considered questionable, but some other comments he made about what happened to Christ were different from the popular religious dogma so they were considered to be from other sources and more reliable.

To me it seems likely that there was a man called Jesus who was crucified simple because the story spread so quickly after his death and there is no one source that seemed to make it all up.  Instead it came from multiple sources.  If it was all made up by one guy then I think that person would be more prominent in the history of Jesus.

Not saying that all of the claims about Jesus are actually true.  But I do believe he actually existed.

This.

[Benton]

(07-13-2018, 02:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: I get that conclusion.  I'm just adding that if he's going of oral stories and then matching them up to the gospels he made an assumption.

Somewhere in the back of my head I remember reading that the Roman's kept pretty good records of their executions but that Jesus' wasn't found in them?  

this whole thread is rattling things long buried in my brain that I can't remember 100%!  LMAO!

Around 330 Christianity became Romes official religion. I don't think it's far fetched for an emperor (or some well intended civil servant hoping to gain favor) to "lose" that record. Remember, at that time, people were only a few centuries removed. The oral part of the history wasn't that old, with some people of the time having heard it third or fourth hand. Like your grandmother who talks about the time her dad partied with Abe Lincoln, stories that people of the time can relate names and faces to have a different kind of impact than someone reading a book 1,000 years later.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2018, 01:11 PM)Beaker Wrote: I am assuming you meant creation in place of discussion where bolded. 

If so, your statement is untrue. Evolution means change over time. In other words, how things have changed since they got here. You can certainly easily discuss and investigate that changes that have occurred over evolutionary history without yet having discovered how they got there in the first place. That can be a totally separate discussion and investigation.

And just because science has not figured out biogenesis or the start of the universe doesn't mean evolution is invalid or that a divine creator is the answer.

As I said there's a very good chance man evolved; however, that does nothing to explain where that evolution began. You do realize it is possible to believe evolution was just a process in creation.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2018, 01:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is absolutely a chronology.

First it says Adam was alone and needed a help mate.  So God then created all of the animals, but Adam could not find a help mate among them.  So it is clear that Adam was created first and was alone until god created the animals


18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

I suppose it depends with translation you wish to follow as NIV states:

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals

This indicates the animals were already created just not named; which follows the story of creation. Given if your desire is to question the book you could suggest God formed means that he did it in the spot.

[Beaker]

(07-13-2018, 04:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said there's a very good chance man evolved; however, that does nothing to explain where that evolution began. You do realize it is possible to believe evolution was just a process in creation.

Evolution began with the appearance of the first living organisms on Earth. How they got hear is a distinctly separate issue.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-13-2018, 05:00 PM)Beaker Wrote: Evolution began with the appearance of the first living organisms on Earth. How they got hear is a distinctly separate issue.

I was unaware the the first living organisms on Earth had ears.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2018, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it depends with translation you wish to follow as NIV states:

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals

This indicates the animals were already created just not named; which follows the story of creation. Given if your desire is to question the book you could suggest God formed means that he did it in the spot.

Given if your desire is to interpret it so there is no conflict between the two stories you could suggest what you did.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

Quote:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God createdthe great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”


27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Fish and birds, then livestock, THEN man (in "our" image).

And as to the verse you cited?  You left out the verse before it:

Quote:8 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”


19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animal sand all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature,that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

THAT would imply god saw man was alone and THEN the fish and birds and animals.  Unless he made all of them and man never saw them until god decided to show them to him just to name them and see if any provided company?  That seems a stretch even for interpreting the bible.

[Beaker]

(07-13-2018, 05:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I was unaware the the first living organisms on Earth had ears.

According to creationism that was man, so yes.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2018, 05:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Given if your desire is to interpret it so there is no conflict between the two stories you could suggest what you did.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV


Fish and birds, then livestock, THEN man (in "our" image).

And as to the verse you cited?  You left out the verse before it:



THAT would imply god saw man was alone and THEN the fish and birds and animals.  Unless he made all of them and man never saw them until god decided to show them to him just to name them and see if any provided company?  That seems a stretch even for interpreting the bible.

The helper was Eve

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2018, 05:00 PM)Beaker Wrote: Evolution began with the appearance of the first living organisms on Earth. How they got hear is a distinctly separate issue.

Makes sense I suppose. Still kinda makes you say hhhhmmmmmm...

[*PhilHos*]

(07-13-2018, 05:12 PM)Beaker Wrote: According to creationism that was man, so yes.

Yeah, but Adam clearly had a hearing problem sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ... 

[GMDino]

(07-13-2018, 05:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The helper was Eve

Right, but she was created after Adam named all the animals.  And it reads as if god brought the animals to Adam as if he never saw them before.  If that's the case it reads as if the animals were created after Adam.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-13-2018, 05:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Right, but she was created after Adam named all the animals.  And it reads as if god brought the animals to Adam as if he never saw them before.

Actually, it reads as if Adam never interacted with the animals before, IMO.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2018, 05:55 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Actually, it reads as if Adam never interacted with the animals before, IMO.

And that's your interpretation.

Logically, though, why would that be?  How could Adam have never seen a single other living thing?  Or did he see them and then later god thought maybe he'd want one to keep him company if he named them?


And why would it not be written that the animals were made first?

It is ALL about interpretation.  Especially with the second version of the creation story.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2018, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it depends with translation you wish to follow as NIV states:

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals

This indicates the animals were already created just not named; which follows the story of creation. Given if your desire is to question the book you could suggest God formed means that he did it in the spot.

No.  It does not depend on the translation.  It depends on the context.  Even the NIV version makes it clear if you look at more than just one verse

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”  19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals, but for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found.

1.  Adam was alone.  
2.  God said "I will make a helper".  
3.  God made all the animals