Was Jesus a real person?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I think what you might not take into consideration is the wild fire spread of "Christianity" that existed during the Roman times. The times before the Romans actually embraced "Christianity". And being the power they were; what would you think that juggernaut empire would do?

Wouldn't you think they would try and do everything in their power to destroy all Christian documentation, relics, writings of Christ ever existing?

excusing the lack of documentation just supports being agnostic on the subject, which is my position.

And do you honestly believe that this "wide spread" phenomenon would have thousands of people willing to die for their beliefs; if they didn't think this was true?

i'm not arguing that early christians weren't sincere in their beliefs.
 
And I find it amazing that "Christianity" survived without a King, Emperor or United Nation to back up the Faith. Wouldn't you think that there was some supernatural force, allowing for this "Faith" to survive the constant hunting, destroying of nations, assassinations, murders, and fear?

And don't bring up the Muslim faith. They had kings, countries and became one of the most powerful nations backing up their religion. Christianity had no one, but "The People whom believed" and had to worship "underground" for many centuries before it became an adopted Religion.


sorry that's just a dumb argument. the survival of christianity, no matter how improbable you want to paint it, isn't evidence its tenets are accurate.
 
for those not of the Christian faith....what would it mean to you if there was "acceptable, non-controvertible" evidence that a man known as Jesus existed at the time the Bible says he did, saying the things he said? Something like a census report or letters or whatever? You'd still not believe he was the Divine Son of God Sent For Salvation of the World, right?

does the fact that sai baba exists make you any more compelled to believe what he says?

I mean, if you believe the books of Moses, God walked with them during the Exodus as a pillar of fire at night and a pillar of smoke during the day, and rained down food from Heaven for them, but most of them didn't believe that He was God and didn't believe He would do what He said he would. I'm always curious about people who want "proof" for faith--I understand the intention behind it, but I wonder if it really would change anything.

people who want proof aren't interested in faith.
 
sorry that's just a dumb argument. the survival of christianity, no matter how improbable you want to paint it, isn't evidence its tenets are accurate.

But is it dumb? You base your "Faith" on logic; which is a pretty dumb logic. Unfortunately for many that consider themselves "Agnostic" or "Atheist"; they have Faith in logic. That is the same "emotional" faith of those that believe in God.

Thomas Henry Huxley, likewise admitted that his own opinion was NOT grounded on any true scientific facts or evidence, but was more of a "religious" expression: "I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith."
 
people who want proof aren't interested in faith.

Hmmm, I don't know if you are educated about the "evolution of man"; but did you know that scientists built the "Nebraska Man" from one tooth? Did you know later, that tooth was later determined to be an extinct pig?

Lucy was just a skeleton of a chimpanzee?

Heidelberg man, was a jawbone that was later admitted to be human?
Did you know the Pilton Man was built from a jawbone, that was later discovered to be a modern ape?

Did you know the Neanderthal man was later discovered the skelton of a man suffering from arthritis?

As you can see many "Evolutionists, Atheists, or Agnostics" go to great lengths to prove their faith to no avail. Yet they base it as fact and it's in all the public biology books as fact. Now you tell me what makes this any different that the "Christian Faith"?
 
people who want proof aren't interested in faith.

Hmmm, I don't know if you are educated about the "evolution of man"; but did you know that scientists built the "Nebraska Man" from one tooth? Did you know later, that tooth was later determined to be an extinct pig?

Lucy was just a skeleton of a chimpanzee?

Heidelberg man, was a jawbone that was later admitted to be human?
Did you know the Pilton Man was built from a jawbone, that was later discovered to be a modern ape?

Did you know the Neanderthal man was later discovered the skeleton of a man suffering from arthritis?

As you can see many "Evolutionists, Atheists, or Agnostics" go to great lengths to prove their faith to no avail. Yet they base it as fact and it's in all the public biology books as fact. Now you tell me what makes this any different that the "Christian Faith"?
 
Hmmm, I don't know if you are educated about the "evolution of man"; but did you know that scientists built the "Nebraska Man" from one tooth? Did you know later, that tooth was later determined to be an extinct pig?

Lucy was just a skeleton of a chimpanzee?

Heidelberg man, was a jawbone that was later admitted to be human?
Did you know the Pilton Man was built from a jawbone, that was later discovered to be a modern ape?

Did you know the Neanderthal man was later discovered the skelton of a man suffering from arthritis?

wow. what color is the rock ceiling in your cave?
 
People want to believe what they want. They'll accept any so-called "evidence" to support their own beliefs. My life is not dominated by me needing "answers" to life's "questions". I just don't care if there is a God or not, or if human beings evolved from earlier forms of life over millions and billions of years. I have 70, maybe 80 years on this planet and in this life and me knowing the secrets of the universe isn't going to make my time with my wife and family any more enjoyable, or make my job easier, or put food on my table, or give me any amount of happiness or security. My life is worth living every single day because I exist, not because some ethereal deity chooses it. People who spend their lives looking for these answers are wasting valuable time and energy, in my opinion.
 
wow. what color is the rock ceiling in your cave?

So you say I come from a rock because I don't believe in darwinism? Show me any scientific documentation or research that proves it does exist? I am talking about the evolution of man.
 
So you say I come from a rock because I don't believe in darwinism? Show me any scientific documentation or research that proves it does exist? I am talking about the evolution of man.


whether you believe in evolution or not your prior post is obviously just a list of anti-evolution propaganda that creationists websites use to influence people that know absolutely nothing about the subject and are too lazy to research what is known for themselves. that's what i meant by you living in a cave. read a science book - if god exists he would want you to.

fakes like piltdown man were exposed almost immediately by the general scientific community and have nothing to do with why there is a scientific consensus for evolution. Neanderthals were either a subspecies of humans, or a separate species, but known from many skeletons and a very real thing.
 
People want to believe what they want. They'll accept any so-called "evidence" to support their own beliefs. My life is not dominated by me needing "answers" to life's "questions". I just don't care if there is a God or not, or if human beings evolved from earlier forms of life over millions and billions of years. I have 70, maybe 80 years on this planet and in this life and me knowing the secrets of the universe isn't going to make my time with my wife and family any more enjoyable, or make my job easier, or put food on my table, or give me any amount of happiness or security. My life is worth living every single day because I exist, not because some ethereal deity chooses it. People who spend their lives looking for these answers are wasting valuable time and energy, in my opinion.

I can totally respect your thinking. Much more than the contridiction of Darwinism or atheism or agnostic belief. They try and force their beliefs "which mind you aren't scientifically documented" down our throats. They force their Darwinism on the children of schools, without any physical proof of their theory. It's no different than creationists. They call us bigots and dengerous, yet isn't it also dangerous to falsify science to support Darwinism? Isn't it also dangerous to say there is no god, when they don't have proof there isn't one?

This is where faith comes in. There are those that believe there is a God and will go to great lengths to support their belief and then there are those that don't believe in god and will go to great lengths to disprove it as well. The funny thing is no one has concrete proof on their belief.
 
whether you believe in evolution or not your prior post is obviously just a list of anti-evolution propaganda that creationists websites use to influence people that know absolutely nothing about the subject and are too lazy to research what is known for themselves. that's what i meant by you living in a cave. read a science book - if god exists he would want you to.

fakes like piltdown man were exposed almost immediately by the general scientific community and have nothing to do with why there is a scientific consensus for evolution. Neanderthals were either a subspecies of humans, or a separate species, but known from many skeletons and a very real thing.

Um no, look it up on Wikipedia and all the proof is there. All of what I've said about evolution is true.
 
Since you've already made up your mind that you don't believe in it, that would be pointless.

Lmao!!! Yet you've already made up your mind that god doesn't exist and ask us to provide proof. A little contradicting are you?
 
regardless of whatever side of whatever argument, the "look it up on wikipedia" is a tough one for me to swallow. if nothing else, at least link to some of the source.
 
regardless of whatever side of whatever argument, the "look it up on wikipedia" is a tough one for me to swallow. if nothing else, at least link to some of the source.

Oh they have references on their definitions and findings at the bottom. Also, on "Darwinism". There are exact quotes made by scientists, Darwinists and creationilist; so you get the perfect "neutral" point of view.
 
Lmao!!! Yet you've already made up your mind that god doesn't exist and ask us to provide proof. A little contradicting are you?

I never asked you for proof that God exists. I simply stated that I didn't care. You obviously care if evolution is true or not, and since you've made your beliefs known, me providing evidence to the contrary would be a waste of my time and yours. Enjoy your self-knowledge of the unknowable. Hope it lets you sleep better at night.
 
Okay fine Brian, I will post links and quotes to support my argument... I was on my iPhone before, but I turned on the desktop to sum it up.

Evolution
In 2001, staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following:

Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?[98]

As mentioned earlier, one of the more famous alleged transitional fossils claimed by evolutionists is Archaeopteryx. Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds and an evolutionist himself, has stated the following regarding Archaeopteryx:
“ Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.[99]

In 1980, David Woodruff wrote in the journal Science the following: "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”[94] The late Ernst Mayr was a prominent Harvard biologist who also served as the director of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology. Mayr was a staunch evolutionist and atheist[95] who maintained that evolution was a fact, yet in 1982 Mayr was compelled to make the following admission regarding the fossil record in relation to the theory of evolution: "Even the fossil record fails to substantiate any continuity and all novelties appear in the fossil record quite suddenly."[96]

The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way:
“ Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils....I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[91]

One of the most famous proponents of the theory of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted the following:
“ The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.[87]

David Raup, who was the curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection, the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, observed:
“ "[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.

Scientist Dr. Michael Denton wrote regarding the fossil record:
“ "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient Paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today.[83]

http://conservapedia.com/Nebraska_Man

Nebraska man (also called Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was a case of evolutionary speculation. Nebraska man was based on the find of a single peccary-like tooth (wild pig like tooth) found by a rancher in 1922.
 
I never asked you for proof that God exists. I simply stated that I didn't care. You obviously care if evolution is true or not, and since you've made your beliefs known, me providing evidence to the contrary would be a waste of my time and yours. Enjoy your self-knowledge of the unknowable. Hope it lets you sleep better at night.

Oh sry Chris, I thought you were "crow". I was on my iPhone, so things are very hard to read. My mistake and sorry about that post.
 
So you say I come from a rock because I don't believe in darwinism? Show me any scientific documentation or research that proves it does exist? I am talking about the evolution of man.

The heavily-documented and drastic evolution of man in the last few thousand years is proof enough for any clear-thinking person.

Denying evolution is like denying tornadoes. Just because you fear the consequences doesn't mean you can wish it away.
 
The heavily-documented and drastic evolution of man in the last few thousand years is proof enough for any clear-thinking person.

Denying evolution is like denying tornadoes. Just because you fear the consequences doesn't mean you can wish it away.

Really? So you think there is a distinct difference from man now physically than those of men 1,000 years ago? Any again, just a theory. If it's so irrefutable then it would be easy to find fossils of the transition. I mean shit man, we've got fossils of freaked dinosaurs. Why can't we find any of the transition of man? Or any other animal for that matter?
 
Then, in 1998, evolutionist Michael Denton shocked everyone with his book, Nature's Destiny, when he admitted:

Because this book presents a teleological interpretation of the cosmos which has obvious theological implications, it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes....

Although this is obviously a book with many theological implications, my initial intention was not specifically to develop an argument for design; however, as I researched more deeply into the topic and as the manuscript went through successive drafts, it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature were fine-tuned on earth to a remarkable degree and that the emerging picture provided powerful and self-evident support for the traditional anthropocentric teleological view of the cosmos. Thus, by the time the final draft was finished, the book had become in effect an essay in natural theology in the spirit and tradition of William Paleyís Natural Theology.

Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis-there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with life and mankind as its purpose and goal (pp. xvii-xviii,xi-xii, 387, emp. in orig.).

This coming from one of the leading evolutionists...
 
Now I don't want to be depicted as some "Bible Thumping" eccentric, but I am using the same argument that others are portraying in this thread. If you need irrefutable proof that God exists; then I require that very same proof that evolution exists. How is it that paleontologists have dug up millions of fossils; yet haven't found a connection to evolution? If evolutionary man did exists, then it wouldn't be 1 man/woman in one selected area. There would be groups of fossils found of these types of humanoids. And since science has proven that animals are "social" and require the accompany of their own creed; why haven't we found these congregations? I mean in Montana; there were groups of the same species in the same area. And knowing that man is one of the most "social" beings on this planet; wouldn't you find the most fossils of these "humanoids" together?
 
What do you mean "evolution exists"? Do you mean you want proof that things have evolved?

I never understand exactly what people are doubting. Do they doubt that organisms can change? What's happening in dog breeding, then?
 
Last edited:
Now I don't want to be depicted as some "Bible Thumping" eccentric, but I am using the same argument that others are portraying in this thread. If you need irrefutable proof that God exists; then I require that very same proof that evolution exists. How is it that paleontologists have dug up millions of fossils; yet haven't found a connection to evolution?

I'm not particularly interested in debating evolution, at least in this thread which you kinda hijacked, but you should really study other sources since everything you've posted is based on propaganda-style misrepresentation (michael denton is a long-time ANTI-evolution author, not a leading evolutionist; every single fossil ever found has fit in with a pattern we would expect if evolution were true etc.)

If evolutionary man did exists, then it wouldn't be 1 man/woman in one selected area. There would be groups of fossils found of these types of humanoids. And since science has proven that animals are "social" and require the accompany of their own creed; why haven't we found these congregations? I mean in Montana; there were groups of the same species in the same area. And knowing that man is one of the most "social" beings on this planet; wouldn't you find the most fossils of these "humanoids" together?

because conditions were so much more competetive our humanoid ancestors likely were much less social and more small clan-oriented than modern man. they also were very likely relatively uncommon in number compared to some dinosour species that may have existed in herds of millions as with modern plains mammal species. presumably being a little smarter than dinosaurs they also would have been less prone to lemming effects where a group dies the same way before individuals can adjust to what is going on, which is likely the case where groups of dinosaurs drowned together etc.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top