No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm - http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Seeing as how 'Jesus' was one of the most common names used in that particular area and time, I'm sure there was at least one with the last name 'Christ'.

The chances of him also being the son of God are considerably lower though. I suppose the Christians took a shot in the dark with that one...

jesus(isa)has been proven to exist,there are writings that prove that he,his wife and kids,and his FATHER existed

Christ is a Greek term meaning "Messiah". Contrary to what people think, the term would have never been attached to Jesus during his lifetime, but rather it was a term conferred upon him a century after his death.

The key of the issue, I think, is the Messiah appelation. If one reads the Bible carefully, it appears that Jesus went to great lengths to appear as the Messiah that had been profesised to deliver the Jews from the Roman occupation. Such as him riding "triumphantly" into Jerusalem on a donkey: according to the Old Testament, that's how the Messiah was supposed to appear. Now, the funny thing is that the Messiah is supposed to be a very warlike figure, not a man with a message of peace. Also, did anyone ever notice that Jesus never once refers to himself as the only son of God? There's plenty of "son of Man", and referring to God as humanity's father, but not specifically of Jesus saying that he is the only son of God.

I think that Jesus intended to be the Messiah, was caught by the Romans and executed as a rebel. His story was then taken by Paul of Tarsus, and modified to suit Paul's needs. The reason why there's no outside records of Jesus is probably because Paul altered his story beyond recognition.

What writings are these, could yu post a link?

I'll try,i could be wrong though because i read in in a book a long time ago,and when i try to do a search about it it's all christian propoganda that shows up

Why did it take so long to write about Jesus Christ after his death?

Originally posted by Richard XIII I think everybody accept that Plato existed. No double standard between philosophy and religion. In fact is a double standard between mind and heart.

There's a major difference here: whether Plato or not existed, it is only his message, his ideas that matter. In the case of Jesus, the person matters just as much as the message, since he is supposed to be the son of God, and his message therefore would become irrefutable . His existence therefore, becomes crucial to the message. Without him really existing, Christianity would be just another philosophy.

Originally posted by Richard XIII I think everybody accept that Plato existed. No double standard between philosophy and religion. In fact is a double standard between mind and heart.

Plato left first hand texts and the site of the academy, solid physical evidence. That's the point about Jesus he left no physical evidence or first hand texts.

Surely just another religion or cult..... Not philosophy. It would be an irrational belief system with no validation.

If Jesus did not exist, then the Christian myth is just that. However, if Jesus did exist, that says nothing one way or another about the truth of the myth. The important issue is not whether Jesus existed, but whether the Christ existed (and, for that matter, still exists).

Even whether Jesus taught what he is supposed to have taught is not terribly important. The issue is whether and why anyone should pay any attention to what he is supposed to have taught.

You raise a good point as to why we who are atheists like to depress and criticize the beliefs of "true believers."  Let me see if I can answer that. 

1.  We need to go after unscientific beliefs because secular science is the only common thing people believe across the globe.  Take it away and the world is left divided into four huge hate groups, groups which are dedicated to the elimination of the other: Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Asian Marxism.  All four would become locked in combat over our diminishing world resources.  Our common belief in science-secular ideals across the globe are all that now prevents that from happening. 

2.  We atheists have little in common other than our non-belief.  It is almost the only thing that unites us.  Our secular ideals are being torn apart and our science education is being creationized and Intelligent Design idiotized.  You Christians like to picture yourselves as martyrs, but we atheists have only one forum and that is internet.   We are locked out of the newspapers, tV, radio and magazines.  We cannot even pay for ads. 

3.  We consider relieving others of the burden of trying to accept non-science on faith as being uplifting for both them and us, not depressing.  If dealing with us is depressing to you it is because you are ineffective in your responses.  We fill you with self-doubt and make it harder for you to keep all that dogma on faith.  We remind you that you did have a science education and that you have turned your back on it even though you like to think you haven't.

Personally, I believe there is an alternative to all this.  To have to choose science-secular in a society dominated by hedonism, gambling, addictions, obesity, corporate fraud, immodesty in dress and crime and violence, we should be turning to a system of belief which is far more moral than archaic Christian dogma.  What can we say of a Bible that has commands in it allowing slaves and which has nothing against rape, kidnapping, extortion, bribery, sewing mines, spreading fatal diseases and torture? 

 There is an alternative . . .

charles,  http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com - http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

I have heard the same thing from somewhere. A Roman soldier was his father. His name was something like Panther...... I dont know of course if it is true.

Why would you think saying someone is not a Christian would be offensive? What a strange way of thinking.

Precicely! The main reason people are somewhat skeptical of Jesus' historical existence  is because there are only a few known contemporary records. The vast majority of sources who refer to a person called Jesus are Christian and even the Bible, some people are taking for granted as proof for his existence was written by people convinced he was son of  god, and who clearly had motives to embellish various details, or even whole events.  Therefore simply isn't that much evidence to prove or disprove his existence. Whatever conclusions people draw from that, are their owns.

What is the real shame is that, in this modern world, we still have people willing to believe in foolish fantasies with no evidence whatsoever. The reason why those who are atheists often wear the title with pride is precisely because what defines them is an unwilliningness to blindly believe in something simply because they want it to be true.

well that is corerct,but atheism is a belief also.

And the shame is not what those people belive,the shame is that their belief of those non-proved mumbo jumbo keeps them from commiting terrible crimes

Atheism is no more a belief than the assertion "that that there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon" is a belief.

I'm sorry, are you saying that belief in a god keeps people from committing terrible crimes? I'd say that even a cursory look at history confirms this is not the case.

i believe in God, im a Christian but i cannot accept books that they were written by Jewish shepherds centuries after Jesus death.

They are not even Historians to see things as an unbiased observer. Im sure that they were subjective.

Dont forget that all of us have a different concept about God even if we all are Christians.

I'm not sure what you mean but, if you’re trying to say that Christianity has existed despite not needing physical evidence to support it, I disagree.

There are numerous examples I can point to where the Church has sought to interfere with the natural progression of scientific knowledge that it judged as "heresies" because it was concerned that these were incompatible with its religion. The church has attempted to shape a world-view that gives support for the bible. For example, it advocated a world where some mythical world-flood had destroyed everything and where god had conjured up the universe in seven days. To do this, it needed certain "proofs", obviously "faith" would not be enough.

For example, their persecution of Galileo’s theories, their condemnation of Darwin's evolution. The Church has always attempted to fabricate evidence supporting its religion, and tried to stifle the legitimate attempts to understand our world that might take away this support.

I read Etane's post differently.  I think he meant could Christianity have emerged and still exist if Jesus had never lived (or was some kind of composite character like Homer).

The answer has to be yes, doesn't it? We know Christianity exists. We don't know whether Jesus did. So whether Jesus lived or not must be immaterial to Christianity's existence.

For that matter we know Christianity exists, but we don't know God does, so the existence of Christianity does not depend on the existence or God.

If it were otherwise, then the fact of any religion's existence would require that its tenets be true. Which is patently unjustified, as any member of any faith will agree, since he thinks all the others are wrong.

"There are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon" is a belief. I happen to share it, and pretty convinced I am too.

Are you saying you don't believe there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon?

The message is independent of the bearer, even of the alleged bearer's existence. That church and state should be independent as Jesus is alleged to have said would be just as true whether Jesus lived or didn't live, or said 'Render unto Caesar  that which is Caesar's' or didn't, whether it was interpolated a hundred years later or a thousand.

That is, it may or may not be true, but its truth doesn't depend in the least on the truth of the story in which it is embedded.

'No man is an island'. Does the truth of that depend on who said it, or where or when?

I am saying that I dont' believe there are blue fairies frolicking on the moon. I don't see what point you are trying to make using double negatives.

Basically, what you are saying is: "I believe that I do not believe" is a belief. Fine then, I'm not going to argue with these semantics.

By the same token I could say you "dont believe that there are no gods". What on earth is the point in talking like this?

Fact is you either:

-1. I believe (there is enough evidence, I have faith, I just do, whatever)

-2. Do not believe (there is not enough evidence, I dont have faith, etc)

No amount of linguistic backflips from you will negate this fact. Incidently, why do you refuse to believe in one non-rational proposition (the fairies) but you believe the other (god)?

For most people it is true.They are afraid to commit a sin not a crime.

***huge sighs***...atheism is a belief.because in the end the existyense/noon-existense of god evolves into a huge paradox.You can neither prove neither disprove god exists

Wasn't really a double negative. However to indicate that, I accept I should have put quotes around "there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon".  Not believing a statement that contains a negative is not a double negative.

"I don't not believe" would be a double negative. But, incidentally, "I don't disbelieve" is not the same as "I don't not believe".

I don't believe in God. Any god. I don't see why you think I should. I don't believe there are fairies on the moon. I believe "there are no fairies on the moon."

You said

If something is not a belief, how can you be said to believe it?

My point is that both atheism and "there are no blue fairies frolicking on the moon" are beliefs.

Personally I believe in neither the existence of gods nor the non-existence of gods. If you name any particular god, I think the probability of its existence is vanishingly small, so I would say, for instance, I don't believe that Jehovah or Osiris exist. But no god(s) at all is too much of a stretch.

(I believe Jesus probably existed, because I can't see why anyone would make him up. I don't believe he was divine.)

And you can neither prove nor disprove that I am a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle. Is that also a pradox?

I'm afraid that I find this a very strained form of thought. One says that one either believes or does not believe the world is round. If one believes that the world is round, than one believes that the world is round, one does not "not believe that the world is not round" or "not believe that the world is flat" or "not believe that the world is pear-shaped" or "not believe that the world is cylindrical" or "not believe that the world is pyramidal", ad infinitum.

Regardless, lets not get stuck in semantics. Surely you will agree with me that one's default opinion on something's existance should be "I do not believe" until that person has provided positive proof of the thing's existance, as this is the more  defensible position.

It is not up to the sceptic to disprove that I am a 20-foot invisible gazelle, it is up to the claimer to prove it, otherwise you would have the absurd position of having to say "I dont disbelieve that you are a 20-foot invisible gazelle, because I can't disprove it".

Hardly. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this world is not completely natural. Therefore, god is not required. Therefore, god does not exist.

To believe otherwise is irrational, you just as rationally might believe that I am a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle.

Rubbish. The Spanish Inquisition? Muslim extremist terrorism? Rationalisation of a peasant's surfdom to his lord? Sectarian violence throughout the world? It is a lot easier to argue that religion causes violence rather than prevents it.

There is no proof that a "religious" person is any more likely to follow the tennants of his own religion that the laws of the state.

Nope. Neither statement is a paradox. The Continuum Hypothesis can neither be proved not disproved. That's not a paradox. Gödel demonstrated that in all sufficiently complex systems there must be some assertions that can neither be proven nor disproven. There's nothing paradoxical about not being able to prove or disprove something.

Anyway, the only reason I can't prove anything about you is that you're not around to observe. If you were, I could.

(It is in fact proven already that you, whoever or whatever you are, respond to stimuli, and therefore exist and are sentient. God on the other hand has never been observed to respond to stimuli.)

You make the same mistake again when you say 'if one believes the world is round, one does not "not believe that the world is not round"'.

Too many 'nots' or the quotes are in the wrong place. If one believes "the world is round", one does not believe "the world is not round", i.e. one does not believe "the world is flat".

You're getting much too tied up in nots.

Semantics? Sounds more like syntax to me.

Nope. One's default position should be based on the a priori probability of the proposition, or the opinion of people one trusts, not on whether the proposition is phrased as a negative or a positive.

Should I believe quarks exist? Or that they don't exist? No-one's ever given me direct proof. How about black holes? For that matter, how about viruses?

You are saying that if you tell me you do have an appendix, I should assume you are lying. On the other hand, if you tell me you do not have an appendix, I should assume you are telling the truth.

Personally I'll believe you whatever you say.

The second 'therefore' is invalid. That god is not required I agree. However the final deduction should be more like 'therefore we should assume god does not exist'.

But even if I claimed I were next to you for you to observe, you still would not be able to prove that I existed as I am invisible. Thus by the nature of my claim, you cannot disprove that I am a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle. God, similarly, would have characterisitcs that make it impossible to disprove him. A supernatural entity that can supposedly violate the very rules of logic that make up this universe is not testable.

Science dictates that any hypothesis that can not possibly be disproved somehow is worthless. Therefore, it is equally wortless to assert god exists. The default position must be a rejection of his existance, just as the default position must be a rejection of my being a 20-foot tall invisible gazelle.

You're getting much too tied up in nots.

Fine. I'll conseed then that you can believe either in the existance or non-existance of something, fdor the purposes of this argument. However, I still maintain that the onus of proof must be to the person asserting existance, not to the sceptic that doubts it.

I do believe all of these things have substantial evidence supporting their existance, otherwise they would never be defensible in the scientific community. Something for which there is no evidence is always rejected by the scientific method.

God of course, has no evidence supporting his existance, and can never have. There is absolutely no reason to say he may exist, until such time as this situation changes and at least some evidence materialises.

Well the assumption is implied.

This can be rectified by redefining "gazelle" in my case to being able to be both invisible and 20 foot tall. my point is, when this is done, the hypothesis becomes imposible to disprove and worthless.

Likewise all you have done here is redefined the hypothesis to make it impossible to disprove. It is therefore not worthy of rational consideration.

In that case I would argue very few people are religious (under that definition), compared to those who believe in god.

I could if I could see you. It's easy (well, straightforward anyway) to disprove someone is invisible. I can't on the other hand prove you are invisible, because if I can't see you it might be because you are not there.

I agree there's no point (from an epistemological point of view9 in asserting god exists, given that by god you mean something ineffable and unobservable. However that doesn't apply to the thing about you being 20 feet tall, invisibile and a gazelle. Even apart from the fact that the three attributes are logically self-contradictory, each on its own is eminently testable.

And I'd be willing to bet you fail the tests. (Like can you throw a basketball down through the net while standing on the floor?)

You're getting much too tied up in nots. Fine. I'll conseed then that you can believe either in the existance or non-existance of something, fdor the purposes of this argument. However, I still maintain that the onus of proof must be to the person asserting existance, not to the sceptic that doubts it. Should I believe quarks exist? Or that they don't exist? No-one's ever given me direct proof. How about black holes? For that matter, how about viruses? For that matter, how about viruses? I do believe all of these things have substantial evidence supporting their existance, otherwise they would never be defensible in the scientific community. Something for which there is no evidence is always rejected by the scientific method.

There's no evidence for string theory being true. Should one believe strings do not exist? Or just keep an open mind, bearing a priori probablities in mind?

Yes there could be. You'll have god-people jumping all over you if you say that. All it would take is for god to appear and confirm his existence, possibly by sending everyone who rejects him to perdition.

The point is not that there could never be any evidence SUPPORTING the existence of god. The point is there could never be any evidence proving he did NOT exist.

Again you push it a bit too far. There are lots of reasons to say it may exist, otherwise I don't suppose anyone would ever say it did.

There's a very big difference between assuming something does not exist, and saying it doesn't exist. Ther's just as big a difference between assuming something does exist and saying it does exist.

Back to quarks and strings and so on.

See above about the ease of proving something is visible and the ease of proving it is or is not 20 feet tall.

You'd have a better example if you said you were an unclassifiable being of unmeasurable height that is sometimes visible and sometimes invisible.

THAT would really be hard to prove or disprove. It would also be closer to the thing about god.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that my being invisible means it is not possible for you to disprove that I am 20-foot tall or a gazelle. My being invisible means you cant disprove that I am in your presence at this very moment! My arbitrary rules have made me impossible to disprove. Just like god.

I agree.

But what if I said that this gazelle does not want to participate in these tests? What if I say the gazelle does not want you to disprove or prove its existance. My definition of the 20-foot tall invisible gazelle is now immune to being disproved because I refuse to throw a basketball.

String theory is a model, just like the Rutherford atom or the Bohr atom are models. They are models because they can explain certain observable phenomena. String theory obviously is a model that seeks to explain certain observable theory. Therefore, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

God is not a model. He is not needed to explain anny observable phenomenon, as Occam's Razor can remove him from this natural universe.

See this is what I mean. Any natural phenomenon can be tested and disproved or proved. God, being supernatural can neither be proved nor disproved.

It is too hard to argue with "All it would take is for god to appear and confirm his existence, possibly by sending everyone who rejects him to perdition" as that is a matter of faith. It hasn't happened and wont be happening. Fact is the universe is natural, not supernatural.

Oh I agree, there are a lot of resons to believe in god. They just aren't rational ones, but they are reasons nonetheless. For example, because people fear death, and wish to continue after they have died. For example, because they wish to place an "each way bet" and escape the torment of hell-fire just incase. For example, to provide their lives with meaning that they cant give it. For example, to feel special. For example, because of a sense of tradition. For example, because you have a certain "feeling" that he exists. etc

All of these are reasons. My point were there were no rational reasons for doing so, no evidence.

I think you're clutching at straws. When I say the Quantum Probability Cloud model for the atom is accurate I assume it is accurate. All that humans can ever do is make assumptions based on the evidence they have. After all, we aren't gods .

Only if you are invisible, which in fact from my point of view at the moment you are. Provably. From direct observation. The point is though that if I could see you, that would DISPROVE that you were invisible, and very probably also disprove that you are 20 feet tall and a gazelle.

Your original contention was that the statement was neither provable nor disprovable, which isn't true.

Then I have to invent a test that does not require your willing participation. Which isn't difficult.

You said the default view of a proposition that something exists should always be that it is false. Then you added unless there was generally accepted evidence for it. That would imply that you should, as a default position, reject string theory since there is no evidence for it.

If you're now saying that you should accept such a position if it is USEFUL to do so, then I wouldn't disagree. It would however have been better to do that at the start.

God IS a model. A construct invented partly to explain certain phenomena, partly for other reasons, like justifying political power grabs and whatever.

I agree it is an unnecessary concept to explain observable phenomena. That was never an issue here.

My point is you have to watch the tightness of your arguments or you give people all sorts of loopholes. The existence of God could be proven. If you say it couldn't be you're weakening your position. Which ought to be simply that the existence of God could not be disproven. That's the reason to reject the hypothesis.

But now your analogy is much closer to what I suggested. If you propose that something exists that is undetectable and does not interact with its environment, then of course that is neither disprovable nor provable and useless.

However the commonest position among the religious is that God exists and is usually undetectable and usually doesn't interact with the material universe. The kicker is in the word 'usually', because it allows for the proposition that God could make himself apparent, and if he did, that would be proof of his existence.

However, it remains a useless proposition because it cannot be disproven

I don't think we are different, at least not very, in what we believe. My major point here is that I think your enthusiasm sometimes carries you away and leads you to dropping your guard.

Which is a pity.

My point was he has been made redandant as an explanation for natural phenomena due to our knowledge of the physical world around us and therfore no longer necessary. He is not useful as a model. String theory may be.

My point has been missed. Obviously I can define this beast so that he is no disprovable. For example, I could say that I exist as both my human self and a seperate invisible, 20-foot tall gazelle self (which refuses to interact with the world and show itself) and you can not disprove this. But you certainly dont believe this, nor even do you consider it possible that this may be true.

I dont think our views are all that disimilar. I conceed that it is not impossible that god could exist, just as I conceed that I may also exist as a duality with an invisible 20-foot tall gazelle that I am not aware of. I also conceed that it is not possible to disprove these hypothesi.

I further conceed that if somehow god or the other half of my 20-foot tall invisible gazelle duality appeared it would provide compelling proof for their existance.

However. I fell none of these concessions should mean that I should not (until such time as a single shred of evidence comes to support either contention, that is) reject outright the existance of either of these things.

I believe Jesus Christ existed! He was in that time like mother Theresa of modern days!

I don't believe what people wrote after his death.

"3.  We consider relieving others of the burden of trying to accept non-science on faith as being uplifting for both them and us, not depressing.  If dealing with us is depressing to you it is because you are ineffective in your responses.  We fill you with self-doubt and make it harder for you to keep all that dogma on faith.  We remind you that you did have a science education and that you have turned your back on it even though you like to think you haven't."

OK, as to the above reference involving science. Why would you think followers of God would refute science? After all he created it. I will later post of a book my friend spoke of about the bible and science. He said that there were many refernces to precipitation and other natural things of this world that were explained in the book(passages taken from the bible). Anyhow believing if Jesus existed is just that, belief. I dont actually know if there is any actual concrete evidence to his exsistance but i can tell you most people believe in him because they have experienced something that is more convincing then any tangible evidence. this is something that atheists cannot comprehend or arent familiar with. Just a matter of being sensible i think we have to ask ourselves the question: Would there be so many people, and so many people with such deep convictions, believing and worshiping a being that never existed? If some of you have answered the above question yes, then that is by FAR the biggest hoax or prank that this world will ever know. IMHO he has to have existed, just my 2 cents though.

Any religion, Christianity not excluded, has a basis of irrationality: the fact that you are served with ad hoc principles you are unable to prove but you have to believe without questioning them, is a core of irrationality. Science and irrationality do not go together well. Actually, they do not go together, period.

It is written in the gospels that "thou shalt believe without questioning" and that's the basis not only of Christianity, but of every religion. The eastern religions-philosophies are a bit different, since they encourage thinking but confine it to "out of this world" matters, which makes them an ideal "opium for the masses", since it exhausts the creativity and problematics of its flock on "higher" issues, while keeping them sheepishly obedient for the present time (to their rulers).

Back to Christianity: it's not merely a religion, it's a religion, a system of conduct, a guide for things as small as physical needs or as large as ruling a state, and a system of thought as well. It not only tries to control every aspect of the "physical" existence of the believers, but also of their psyche as well.

It comes at no surprise that the way Christianity established herself as a dominant religion, was by destroying anything that could resemble rationalism, scientific thinking and progressive attitude - lest alone tolerance and reason. The ancient Graeco-Roman world was the first and most prominent victim of the Christian zealots - it was viewed (and was) totaly incompatible with Christianity. The very same is true for the other two "apocalyptic" faiths (Judaism, Islam): they have the very same attitude, and are based on the same principles of blind faith, lack of questioning and dominance of the religion in every aspect of the personal and social life of the "believer".

I do believe that Jesus existed, but as a rational man that puts science before the mystical I do NOT believe the legends about him walking over water, transforming water into wine and all that nonsense...

He was, that I don't argue with, but to say he was the son of God... hmmm. I have my doubts, but that's another debate that has nothing to do with history.

A historical Jesus does exist; he is not the son of God but is a prophet a God...Christianity is absurd because they believe that Jesus is the son of God...If God had a son, why would he send him to earth to be punished and killed..??..

Originally posted by Alkiviades ... to save us from our sins?

Im just curious, so why can´t God just save us from our sins with a command like "be it". Why does he need to make a whole play?

Actually, proofs and evidences are a must to validate a belief. Most people who seek a belief look into these, not if they like the feeling of that religion or not.

Well said, I totally agree. Not everything you cannot touch or see or find its proof today, it means it does not exist.

To give an example, a lot of scientist doubted the Quranic verse  40 of Sura Nur "…like the darkness of a fathomless sea which is covered by waves above which are waves above which are clouds…"

http://www.55a.net/en/miracles/a028.php - http://www.55a.net/en/miracles/a028.php

Because it was hard to imagine a wave over a wave in a scientific explaination earlier this century, Scientists doubted the occuracy of this verse. However, Scientists have recently discovered that there are internal waves, which "occur on density interfaces between layers of different densities." These internal waves cover the deep waters of seas and oceans because deep water has a higher density than the water above it. Internal waves act like surface waves. They can break, just like surface waves. Internal waves cannot be seen by the human eye, but they can be detected by studying temperature or salinity changes at a given location!

Jesus the Messiah existed with no doubt and his true miracles existed too. If you believe in God, then why is it hard to believe that God will put exceptions to universal laws, called miracles?

its kind of odd, people question the way in which God goes about doing certain things as if they have the capacity to figure him out?? puzzling.

truth be told i am a christian and find myself often questioning why God does certain things or the way in which he does it but we all have to come to the conclusion that when God is in  the issue we cant be so analytical about it, are minds are too inferior to contemplate a meaning or purpose that God has intended.

if you meant that some of God's miracle and some of his signs are sometimes ahead of human analytical capacity, then sure. I mentioned my above example and there are many examples of unexplained signs that later come to sense. Basically as Baris said, not everything has be touchable and explainable today or it is false.

However, if you meant that God's action and decisions are beyond human capacity, I wonder if most Christian will share this view with you. I find it hard to accept that God renders irrational behaviors even for human standard.

the reason for my previous post was to isolate the previous posts that asked why in which jesus had to be sacrificed for our sins and he himself couldnt just snap his finger and that would be that.  some think its because we as sinful humans arent worthy enough for our sins to be taken away without a sacrifice but the truth is nobody knows why the Lord does what he does unless he explained in the text(Bible).

Yes, I got what you meant in your post, that is why I had this section:

However, if you meant that God's action and decisions are beyond human capacity, I wonder if most Christian will share this view with you. I find it hard to accept that God renders irrational behaviors even for human standard

I believe that if God is rational, then God's action are rational, especially dealing with us the human being. If they cannot be explained at all, then it might indicate a deviation from the original reason. Simply placed, it is like a rational story, once you allow for external inputs to the original story, it would be likely the cause of the story deviating for the normal accepted and rational expected end.

I will PM you with what I exactly mean because I know some will take it as a ground to attack other forumers.

There was this man named Jesus, of this there is no doubt

In 64 AD the fire in Rome occured and this prompted Nero to find a scape goat...the Christians. Tactius talks about this in the above quote. This would have been about 30 years after Jesus' death.

Lets keep in mind that in both sources I post, a man named Pontius Pilot is mentioned.

We also have records left over from Josephus.

There was a man named Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius....this is known fact. 

It is possible to actually rely on the Bible....We rely on texts written in early times. For example, the first recorded Japanese history was written in 400AD and I never hear claims that it is unreliable.

Has anybody here examined the dead sea schrolls and compared them to the Bible? I havent, but I'd like to know how similar they are.

Lets keep in mind that Jersalem was destroyed by the ROmans...It is possible that any records of Jesus (such as trial documents) were destroyed as the whole region was devestated.

Good Point Barish...When I was young, I use to believe in God 100 percent, perhaps because I didn't have the knowledge to think critically and rationally as now... However, now that I'm wiser and open-minded to other people's opinions, I'm constantly trying to seek evidence, the truth about God and reality. Thus, my belief and faith in God has deteriorated dramatically...But the only way to the truth is through contradictions...

I read this book on Islam and it had this great question..."How do you describe colors to someone who is born permanently blind?" The answer is easy; you can't...But that does not mean that colors are not there...So, how do you prove the existence of God? Once again, the answer is you can't...But just like there is no way to describe colors to someone who is born blind, there is no way to prove the existence of God...But that does not mean that colors and God don't exist... 

If you ask me, it doesn't really matter if Jesus existed or if he was the son of god. What matters is the cult that was created around christianity and the fact that this cult gave birth to christianity.

Wether to believe or not believe... that is a personal preference. Some people find comfort in "believing without questioning", and that's not confined to religion...

I think you didnt' understand my sentance very well. Im not instructing you to find a proof of God existance, because you cannot do it for now scientifically. As someone already mentioned, you being not able to verify something, it does not mean it does not exist.

However, I was talking "Actually, proofs and evidences are a must to validate a belief. Most people who seek a belief look into these, not if they like the feeling of that religion or not."

This means that if your religion tells you in its "holy book" that the earth is flat and not round, or if it tells you that the sun circle the earth and the earth is fixed...etc

Then it is clear that the God of that book is ignorant and does not know the basic universal laws ,which he created!. Therefore, you cannot tell me I will keep beliving in that book despite the proofs and evidance that it contains severe errors that no one can dispute. Will be an ignorant to say, "No, but I like the feeling of worshipping that God or that book" despite the proofs! Got it now?

I agree. Jesus' existence has been proved based on scientific findings, analysis and testing.

I dont mean to pry, but is your post scarcastic?

I'm sure many skeletons of many famous leaders have not been found. Have they found Atilla's skelton? However, as I stated earlier, there is much historical evidence to conclude that there was a man named Jesus who had a huge impact on history. Whether you trust the Bible is your own decision, but he did exist.

Jesus Christ was the one and only Son of God and he did walk this earth with the good news.  We was beat up flogged humiated he hung on thec ross with the weight of sin on him for all time he was resserected and ascended into heaven.  He will come bach and i hope you guys are ready for it. I know i am

                                                                                              Cheers

Eeeeerrr..... Riiiight....

Anyway my spartan friend, i am not to fond of debates regarding religion, but have you seen the Passion of Christ ? if yes, what did you think of it and the criticism it recieved (i.e anti-jewish propaganda) ?

I m intrested in your point of view.

"No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus"

do see is not to belive, Faith: to belive with no evidence

Christ was not his last name.  That was the name attatched to him, it means something like son of god

The notion of "son of God" is very disputable, because the scripture does not talk about it very clear. I've heard and read disputes on both sides from the point that "son of God" was used in the old testament  as the beloved of God, since David, Israel and etc...all were called by that, howver it is used differently in the new testament and understood as a physical attribution rather than the metaphoric approach of the old testament.

It is hard to prove Jesus existance but it is possible. What is harder further is to prove that he was the son of God. It happens only that I believe that Jesus existed with no doubt from my own religious scriptures, however, that he was the "son of God" that might be little tough to prove not only physically but also for Theologians since in the Bible itself Jesus Christ has  sent his disciples out and he advised them, "Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6).  He also goes back saying to a woman of Canaan, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). Anythought why would he restrict the good news from spreading if he was sent to all human kind as savior, the son of God?

Hmmm....good question Caliph. Well, since in the next text it staes "As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' (Matthew 10:7)

-We have to remember that Jesus does the work of his Father, God. People of Israel are Gods people. In the Bible he is reffered to as 'The God of Israel'. I would gather from the scriptures in Matthew that Jesus doesnt have much time left and is trying to reach out to the "Lost sheep of Israel"

Also if you were to read on in chapter 15 in the last verse it states "Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Matthew 15:28)

-The woman was pleading for Jesus to rid her daughter of a evil spirit. 

Originally posted by Seko Accurate description Komnenos. I wonder what they teach in some of our American churches?  Son of God seems to be the most popular name attached to Christ. Yet it has nothing to do with that word.

But he didn't use it much himself. Mostly he called himself (at least as recorded in the Gospels) 'Son of Man', and referred to God being everyone's 'Father' not just his.