Life_goes_on wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 6:16pm:


This discussion moved along way from whether Jesus the man was real or not many pages ago. Certainly since people like John started writing their own version of history and then expecting people to prove them wrong.

If people want to claim that the historically recorded Jesus in the history books that look at that time are wrong, then the onus is on them to show why all these book and historians are wrong.

If people want to claim that the gospels we have today have been substantially changed over the years (even though those very gospels are copies made in the second century), then the onus is on them to show what changes have been made, and explain how someone forged all these dated copies over one and a half thousand years latter that look like 2nd century copies that has tricked archaeologist since.

If someone wants to completely re right all history regarding Christianity, then they better show some consistency in all other parts of history as well. Totally ludicrous to raise the bar of proof so high for Jesus or any church matter, and then lower it down to normal levels regarding any other historical figure. History is simply a waste of time when there is no set frame work to filter information with. People who insist there is not enough proof for Jesus would quickly find many historical people and events being removed as well if they were to maintain the same standard.

So far a group of people who have a history of mocking anything or anyone Christian (John, Spot, Pecca) have claimed the history books are wrong without giving any evidence at all. Instead they think it is everyone else job to prove the history books are right. They have also shown to have no knowledge of the time period in question or history in general, but expect their I know Jesus didn't exist and anyone who thinks so is just a Christian idiot type response to be a valid argument.

This is now just a group of atheist who have no interest is the discussion but are simply looking to provoke a response for the fun of it. One has to wonder why anyone who doesn't believe in anything would spend their time trying to convince others they are wrong, especially when they know bugger all about the information they claim to dispute. (The Romans changed Horus to Jesus and King James changed the Gospels in secret with the Vatican... This is "It_is_the_light" type insane BS).            

 

   

We have people today that say the moon landings didn't happen or the holocaust. They happily explain away all the evidence with zeal if not credibility. The further you go back, the harder it gets to prove anything.  That does not mean though that the beliefs or history that is claimed is not correct, only that it cannot be proved or disproved.

I think Piltdown Man demonstrated in dramatic form just how silly and easily fooled people are when the outcome suits them.

Bring on a time machine where we can see the actual history.  The interesting thing is how few minds that would actually change.

This discussion moved along way from whether Jesus the man was real or not many pages ago. Certainly since people like John started writing their own version of history and then expecting people to prove them wrong. If people want to claim that the historically recorded Jesus in the history books that look at that time are wrong, then the onus is on them to show why all these book and historians are wrong. If people want to claim that the gospels we have today have been substantially changed over the years (even though those very gospels are copies made in the second century), then the onus is on them to show what changes have been made, and explain how someone forged all these dated copies over one and a half thousand years latter that look like 2nd century copies that has tricked archaeologist since. If someone wants to completely re right all history regarding Christianity, then they better show some consistency in all other parts of history as well. Totally ludicrous to raise the bar of proof so high for Jesus or any church matter, and then lower it down to normal levels regarding any other historical figure. History is simply a waste of time when there is no set frame work to filter information with. People who insist there is not enough proof for Jesus would quickly find many historical people and events being removed as well if they were to maintain the same standard. So far a group of people who have a history of mocking anything or anyone Christian (John, Spot, Pecca) have claimed the history books are wrong without giving any evidence at all. Instead they think it is everyone else job to prove the history books are right. They have also shown to have no knowledge of the time period in question or history in general, but expect their I know Jesus didn't exist and anyone who thinks so is just a Christian idiot type response to be a valid argument. This is now just a group of atheist who have no interest is the discussion but are simply looking to provoke a response for the fun of it. One has to wonder why anyone who doesn't believe in anything would spend their time trying to convince others they are wrong, especially when they know bugger all about the information they claim to dispute. (The Romans changed Horus to Jesus and King James changed the Gospels in secret with the Vatican...  This is "It_is_the_light" type insane BS).             

another factor that everyone seems to forget is that the story if Jesus is very similar to the many of the stories of Horus, and Egyptian god 1000yrs before Jesus. Both born of a virgin, both performed miracles, both sons of gods, both resurrected and many many more similarities

John Smith wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:


Don't exalt too much.  being unprovable also means the claim that Jesus didn't exist is unprovable as well.  And while no side can lay claim to absolute proof, those who claim Jesus existed have the substantially better argument while your side mainly just claims 'no proof'.

A jury would side with the 'Jesus existed' claim every time as the preponderance of evidence is on that side.  I doubt the defence could even make a 'reasonable doubt' claim.

I think Piltdown Man demonstrated in dramatic form just how silly and easily fooled people are when the outcome suits them.

This is just ignorant myth. What the hell does king James (Protestant), the Vatican (Catholic), and the original manuscripts (The Catholic church does not have all of them locked in their vault) have to do with each other?