What Has The 'Christ' Done For You?

[Denny Crane]

See my edit above.

 

[crowTrobot]

There is no evidence of any kind? What Jesus Christs birth documents? What about all the documented works? No evidence there? There is plenty of evidence even in the history books. Take a look

Evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus is not evidence for the existence of God. Most atheists believe the man Jesus probably existed.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i think he meant popular in the high school sense

like jesus bangs all the cheerleaders

 

[Denny Crane]

i think he meant popular in the high school sense

like jesus bangs all the cheerleaders

Yeah, that's it, because it wasn't right in any other sense.

 

[MarAzul]

There are paintings and sculptures if Julius Cesar made in his time. Cesar wrote several books that are still widely known, and contain accounts of events that he witnessed and participated in.

Jesus? Nada.

Next!

Ha! Next! You forgot YHVH.

Jesus wrote nothing, the man had disciples, they wrote quite a bit.
Then there was Moses, he wrote several book (Torah) , some of which grace the Supreme Court of the United States.

Read and Learn.

 

[tlongII]

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 came 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 about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

 

[OneLifeToLive]

Evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus is not evidence for the existence of God. Most atheists believe the man Jesus probably existed.

Pick up the history book. I'm using history instead of bible. Secularists respond to the man made term better.

Jesus is God in the flesh. That's it. God is the creator of the universe you live in. If God is powerful enough to give you the ability to process your next thought to my reply. Isnt he powerful enough to manifest himself in the flesh?

 

[Denny Crane]

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 came 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 about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

For the win. Slam dunk. Well said.

Quite right.

 

[MarAzul]

Does the most popular religion mean it's "God" is the right one? There are so many of them, Hindu, Buddhist, Allah, Jewish Jehova, and so on.
(there isn't a true one, but we humor them).

It's rather weird that you expect anyone to believe what you say Denny. The Jews, Christians and Muslims all agree on the God of Abraham (as the Muslims say) being The God.
They do differ on whether Jesus is God, a prophet to the Jews and Muslims, but they do not differ that he existed.

I do not know that the Hindus are speaking of a different God, I do know that their writings are of a different time. It is very curious, the parallels of Christ and Krishna, different times
but very similar.

I do not know that the Buddhist are speaking of a different God, but again different times and the message of Buddha is not very different than that of Jesus. Teaching men to
be forgiving and mindful of their business rather than someone else's affairs.

Read my man, there is much you could learn.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's rather weird that you expect anyone to believe what you say Denny. The Jews, Christians and Muslims all agree on the God of Abraham (as the Muslims say) being The God.
They do differ on whether Jesus is God, a prophet to the Jews and Muslims, but they do not differ that he existed.

I do not know that the Hindus are speaking of a different God, I do know that their writings are of a different time. It is very curious, the parallels of Christ and Krishna, different times
but very similar.

I do not know that the Buddhist are speaking of a different God, but again different times and the message of Buddha is not very different than that of Jesus. Teaching men to
be forgiving and mindful of their business rather than someone else's affairs.

Read my man, there is much you could learn.

Here comes the duh moment.

If there's the one God, and his word is the gospel, why is there any need for 3 bibles and three radically different religions? They describe three very different gods: one vengeful, one with a son and holy ghost, and one that can be fooled by evil.

It's totally believable that people who didn't know science might think an accidentally started fire was the work of some mystic being and that there were clever people who played the rest as suckers by playing up on the mystic being thing.

And here we are, not getting it that the fire was started by lightning during a drought.

 

[MarAzul]

For the win. Slam dunk. Well said.

Quite right.

Well said??? Yes, one only must ignore the impact in todays world, present all about you. The man has influenced the mean of life for four, five billion people here on earth today.

Not very observant Denny.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Pick up the history book. I'm using history instead of bible. Secularists respond to the man made term better.

Jesus is God in the flesh. That's it. God is the creator of the universe you live in. If God is powerful enough to give you the ability to process your next thought to my reply. Isnt he powerful enough to manifest himself in the flesh?

So.... your argument is that God exists because God exists?

 

[MarAzul]

Here comes the duh moment.

If there's the one God, and his word is the gospel, why is there any need for 3 bibles and three radically different religions? They describe three very different gods: one vengeful, one with a son and holy ghost, and one that can be fooled by evil.

It's totally believable that people who didn't know science might think an accidentally started fire was the work of some mystic being and that there were clever people who played the rest as suckers by playing up on the mystic being thing.

And here we are, not getting it that the fire was started by lightning during a drought.

Don't give up your website Denny, it maybe the zenith of your career. But on the other hand you could read and think, read a bit more an answer some of the question you ask.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I dig the basic message, but honestly, Bill And Ted get to the core of it best:

 

[crowTrobot]

I do not know that the Hindus are speaking of a different God

Hindus are polytheists

I do not know that the Buddhist are speaking of a different God

Buddhists are atheists

 

[crowTrobot]

Yes, one only must ignore the impact in todays world, present all about you. The man has influenced the mean of life for four, five billion people here on earth today.

While I'm personally inclined to believe it's probable the man Jesus existed, what people believe about it today is not evidence for anything.

 

[jlprk]

When my family lived in Japan, the custom was to rub the Buddha's fat stomach for good luck. Later I grew up in the U.S. with solid ivory Buddhas in the living room. Polishing is no fun, so we didn't rub them much, and I've been unlucky ever since.

 

[magnifier661]

While I'm personally inclined to believe it's probable the man Jesus existed, what people believe about it today is not evidence for anything.

This is a valid argument... Just because there is a historical Jesus that was crucified doesn't give proof that God exists. It still requires faith.

 

[magnifier661]

When my family lived in Japan, the custom was to rub the Buddha's fat stomach for good luck. Later I grew up in the U.S. with solid ivory Buddhas in the living room. Polishing is no fun, so we didn't rub them much, and I've been unlucky ever since.

Well you are democrat, so you are closer to communists than most people.

 

[MarAzul]

Hindus are polytheists



Buddhists are atheists

Christ and Krishna are so the same that another God or two is hardly the point

Atheists? Well when I find one that can speaks of reaching a state of enlightenment in a way that a Christian is reminded of Heaven here on earth
I shall listen closely.

 

[OneLifeToLive]

So.... your argument is that God exists because God exists?

Do you exist because you exist? Or was it the cause of the something?

 

[OneLifeToLive]

While I'm personally inclined to believe it's probable the man Jesus existed, what people believe about it today is not evidence for anything.

The evidence is in the book. That's all you need. Take it as you will. Live your life the way you see fit and leave the consequences all to god err or I'd hate to be you and slightly off...

 

[MarAzul]

While I'm personally inclined to believe it's probable the man Jesus existed, what people believe about it today is not evidence for anything.

Quite frankly that is stupid. Those that live as Jesus taught cause the other men very little trouble. It sure as hell not true the other way around. The godless folks make the world the pits for the rest.

 

[crowTrobot]

Pick up the history book. I'm using history instead of bible. Secularists respond to the man made term better.

The Bible IS a history book of sorts. That's trivial. It describes a lot of places and people that we know did exist. So does the Iliad, but presumably you don't spend much time worrying about getting hit by a lightning bolt from Zeus.

Just because there is reason to think a historical figure described in ancient literature actually existed is by itself NOT reason to think miraculous metaphysical, or otherwise extraordinary claims associated with that figure are true. Muhammad certainly existed, yet you don't believe the angel Gabriel gave him sacred texts from God contradicting the Bible. Joseph Smith certainly existed, etc. etc.

 

[crowTrobot]

When my family lived in Japan, the custom was to rub the Buddha's fat stomach for good luck.

someone needs to make a talking Buddha statue that when you rub its stomach says "lower... lower..... lowON TOP OF OLD SMOKEY..."

 

[crowTrobot]

Quite frankly that is stupid. Those that live as Jesus taught cause the other men very little trouble. It sure as hell not true the other way around.

Obviously the topic is did Jesus exist, not are the teachings associated with him beneficial.

 

[jlprk]

Christ and Krishna are so the same that another God or two is hardly the point

Atheists? Well when I find one that can speaks of reaching a state of enlightenment in a way that a Christian is reminded of Heaven here on earth
I shall listen closely.

You obviously never tried psychedelics.

As someone who's never met a war you didn't like, how does your humble Christianity mesh with your consistent angry spasms, saying you want the military to kill large numbers of people? Every time Obama avoids starting a war, you're on him like a fly in a Christian flea market.

Then we have to read this B.S. about you being a Christian.

 

[OneLifeToLive]

The Bible IS a history book of sorts. That's trivial. It describes a lot of places and people that we know did exist. So does the Iliad, but presumably you don't spend much time worrying about getting hit by a lightning bolt from Zeus.

Just because there is reason to think a historical figure described in ancient literature actually existed is by itself NOT reason to think miraculous metaphysical, or otherwise extraordinary claims associated with that figure are true. Muhammad certainly existed, yet you don't believe the angel Gabriel gave him sacred texts from God contradicting the Bible. Joseph Smith certainly existed, etc. etc.

Jesus is God in the flesh. That's it. God is the creator of the universe you live in. If God is powerful enough to give you the ability to process your next thought to my reply. Isnt he powerful enough to manifest himself in the flesh?

[/QUOTE]

The book says the miraculous, metaphysical events occurred. Just as the History books suggest that the Civil War happened. Or the Spanish War took place. Or WW1 and 2. These events happened. And yet there are people who can't wrap there head around it becuase they have never seen it with their eyes. The fact that you can see, smell, hear, think, talk, type. What does that tell you? The fact that you exist doesn't it make it possible that something much greater exists? Something that created you? Something powerful enough to create anything and everything around you? So powerful that if they are able to do that, they are able to manifest themselves in the flesh. It's possible. Not only is it possible. It's real. Whether you want to believe it or not is on you.

 

[crowTrobot]

Christ and Krishna are so the same that another God or two is hardly the point

Atheists? Well when I find one that can speaks of reaching a state of enlightenment in a way that a Christian is reminded of Heaven here on earth
I shall listen closely.

No idea what you're talking about. Point was Hindus and Buddhists have fundamentally different beliefs from the Abrahamic religions. They aren't lumpable in any meaningful sense.

 

[crowTrobot]

The book says the miraculous, metaphysical events occurred. Just as the History books suggest that the Civil War happened. Or the Spanish War took place. Or WW1 and 2. These events happened. And yet there are people who can't wrap there head around it becuase they have never seen it with their eyes.

I'm really hoping I'm being trolled here.