Was Jesus real?

What do you think? Real or not?

Yes

The man, yes. The miracles are up to question and should be looked at from a scientific and archeological perspective.

/thread

“If you take sexual advantage of her, you’re going to burn in a very special level of Hell. A level they reserve for child molesters... and people who talk at the theater."
- Shepard Book of Firefly/Serenity fame

Take a history class
fail thread

“When I got dat work, fiends get in line than I hit em wit dat powder or dat wet. When you be at work you scream 'Who need a line?, than you put powder on they neck."
~ Charlie Clips

there are’t proof about him being real, and I don’t think it’s possible, because he share way too many similarities with others guys from different religions

The only source we have outside the Bible as being corroborating is Josephus. He lists Jesus in 2 different passages. The first is acknowledged to be “partially” authentic by most Biblical scholars. This is as it appeared in Josephus' work, Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 (called the Testimonium Flavianum) with the likely additions in bold.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

The second reference by Josephus is counted as authentic. It is as follows in Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1. More of a passing reference.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Notice Josephus saying the so-called Christ as opposed to proclaiming him in the previous statement. This is one thing that leads scholars to believe that the other has additions. Josephus was Jewish, so flat out calling him the Christ would have been out of character.

In my opinion, based on the writings of Josephus, Jesus was a real person living at that time and the corroborating evidence that we have, back up much of Josephus' writings.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts

I personally don’t think Jesus existed. Outside of the Gospels, there are no eyewitness accounts of his existence. The Gospels themselves were written long after Jesus' supposed death. Mark has written was is dated to be the earliest Gospel - around 70 CE, and the last is John at about 90 CE. So considering the facts that

1. Jesus was supposed to have been killed in his 30’s or 40’s.
2. Jesus was supposedly born about 4BCE.
3. The disciples must have been at least teenaged in the Gospel accounts.
4. The average life expectancy for a Jewish man was about 30 years in those days.
5. The Gospels are dated 30-60 years after Jesus' death...

You can do the maths.

Yeah, doesn’t seem all that likely. When you consider all the elements of the Jesus myth that were ripped off from Pagan legends, it just gets even more dubious.

Sleazy P. Martini wrote: The only source we have outside the Bible as being corroborating is Josephus. He lists Jesus in 2 different passages. The first is acknowledged to be “partially” authentic by most Biblical scholars. This is as it appeared in Josephus' work, Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 (called the Testimonium Flavianum) with the likely additions in bold.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

The second reference by Josephus is counted as authentic. It is as follows in Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1. More of a passing reference.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Notice Josephus saying the so-called Christ as opposed to proclaiming him in the previous statement. This is one thing that leads scholars to believe that the other has additions. Josephus was Jewish, so flat out calling him the Christ would have been out of character.

In my opinion, based on the writings of Josephus, Jesus was a real person living at that time and the corroborating evidence that we have, back up much of Josephus' writings.

I don’t count Josephus' writings as proof of Jesus' existence. He was born is 37 CE and makes no eyewitness claim of Jesus' existence, only hearsay. Furthermore, his accounts were written in 93 CE, 3 years after the last Gospel was written. Definately didn’t see Jesus in his lifetime and could have easily ripped information from rumours and the Gospels themselves.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm

ilikeitwhenyoudie wrote: I personally don’t think Jesus existed. Outside of the Gospels, there are no eyewitness accounts of his existence. The Gospels themselves were written long after Jesus' supposed death. Mark has written was is dated to be the earliest Gospel - around 70 CE, and the last is John at about 90 CE. So considering the facts that

1. Jesus was supposed to have been killed in his 30’s or 40’s.
2. Jesus was supposedly born about 4BCE.
3. The disciples must have been at least teenaged in the Gospel accounts.
4. The average life expectancy for a Jewish man was about 30 years in those days.
5. The Gospels are dated 30-60 years after Jesus' death...

You can do the maths.

Yeah, doesn’t seem all that likely. When you consider all the elements of the Jesus myth that were ripped off from Pagan legends, it just gets even more dubious.

Sleazy P. Martini wrote: The only source we have outside the Bible as being corroborating is Josephus. He lists Jesus in 2 different passages. The first is acknowledged to be “partially” authentic by most Biblical scholars. This is as it appeared in Josephus' work, Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 (called the Testimonium Flavianum) with the likely additions in bold.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

The second reference by Josephus is counted as authentic. It is as follows in Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1. More of a passing reference.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Notice Josephus saying the so-called Christ as opposed to proclaiming him in the previous statement. This is one thing that leads scholars to believe that the other has additions. Josephus was Jewish, so flat out calling him the Christ would have been out of character.

In my opinion, based on the writings of Josephus, Jesus was a real person living at that time and the corroborating evidence that we have, back up much of Josephus' writings.

I don’t count Josephus' writings as proof of Jesus' existence. He was born is 37 CE and makes no eyewitness claim of Jesus' existence, only hearsay. Furthermore, his accounts were written in 93 CE, 3 years after the last Gospel was written. Definately didn’t see Jesus in his lifetime and could have easily ripped information from rumours and the Gospels themselves.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm

The Gospels were not written very long after his death. 30-60 years isnt any time at all in terms of history. If things about him were false people alive during tht time would be alive to speak against it,

Astro wrote:

ilikeitwhenyoudie wrote: I personally don’t think Jesus existed. Outside of the Gospels, there are no eyewitness accounts of his existence. The Gospels themselves were written long after Jesus' supposed death. Mark has written was is dated to be the earliest Gospel - around 70 CE, and the last is John at about 90 CE. So considering the facts that

1. Jesus was supposed to have been killed in his 30’s or 40’s.
2. Jesus was supposedly born about 4BCE.
3. The disciples must have been at least teenaged in the Gospel accounts.
4. The average life expectancy for a Jewish man was about 30 years in those days.
5. The Gospels are dated 30-60 years after Jesus' death...

You can do the maths.

Yeah, doesn’t seem all that likely. When you consider all the elements of the Jesus myth that were ripped off from Pagan legends, it just gets even more dubious.

Sleazy P. Martini wrote: The only source we have outside the Bible as being corroborating is Josephus. He lists Jesus in 2 different passages. The first is acknowledged to be “partially” authentic by most Biblical scholars. This is as it appeared in Josephus' work, Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 (called the Testimonium Flavianum) with the likely additions in bold.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

The second reference by Josephus is counted as authentic. It is as follows in Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1. More of a passing reference.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Notice Josephus saying the so-called Christ as opposed to proclaiming him in the previous statement. This is one thing that leads scholars to believe that the other has additions. Josephus was Jewish, so flat out calling him the Christ would have been out of character.

In my opinion, based on the writings of Josephus, Jesus was a real person living at that time and the corroborating evidence that we have, back up much of Josephus' writings.

I don’t count Josephus' writings as proof of Jesus' existence. He was born is 37 CE and makes no eyewitness claim of Jesus' existence, only hearsay. Furthermore, his accounts were written in 93 CE, 3 years after the last Gospel was written. Definately didn’t see Jesus in his lifetime and could have easily ripped information from rumours and the Gospels themselves.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm

The Gospels were not written very long after his death. 30-60 years isnt any time at all in terms of history. If things about him were false people alive during tht time would be alive to speak against it,

It was very long for a Jewish man living in those times. Like I said, the life expectancy was 30... only 5% of the population was above age 40. Considering he supposedly died at about ~33BCE and they must have been at least pushing 20 at the time... Mark would have had to have written his Gospel at at least 50 (pushing 60) and John at least 70 years old, something only 2% of men attained in those days. Not to mention John was supposed to have been BEHEADED by Herod shortly after Jesus established his ministry, about 30-40CE.

Yeah, killed in 30-40CE and writing his Gospel at 90CE... sounds legit.

Why wait so long to write the Gospels anyway? The closer to Jesus' ressurection, the more accurate they would have been.

I think he was probably a real guy or at least based on a real person, the talk of “miracles” and all that is surely exaggerated. Really whether he’s real or not shouldn’t matter, the idea of Jesus and his teachings are what’s important.

“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together”

KlNG JOHN wrote: I think he was probably a real guy or at least based on a real person, the talk of “miracles” and all that is surely exaggerated. Really whether he’s real or not shouldn’t matter, the idea of Jesus and his teachings are what’s important.

I actually agree with you, haha.
People are obsessed with facts these days. And while facts are extremely important, we shouldn’t forget that symbols and teachings affect our lives just as much; teaching us about the universe and changing the entire way we perceive things. So even if Jesus didn’t exist (and I don’t think he did) we can’t just neglect everything attributed to him because of that. We can learn a lot about how people think from the way Christianity has been adopted and affected people throughout history.

I’m pretty sure he was real, but wether he was the son of god or not is up to debate.

Herp De Derp

ilikeitwhenyoudie wrote:

Astro wrote:

ilikeitwhenyoudie wrote: I personally don’t think Jesus existed. Outside of the Gospels, there are no eyewitness accounts of his existence. The Gospels themselves were written long after Jesus' supposed death. Mark has written was is dated to be the earliest Gospel - around 70 CE, and the last is John at about 90 CE. So considering the facts that

1. Jesus was supposed to have been killed in his 30’s or 40’s.
2. Jesus was supposedly born about 4BCE.
3. The disciples must have been at least teenaged in the Gospel accounts.
4. The average life expectancy for a Jewish man was about 30 years in those days.
5. The Gospels are dated 30-60 years after Jesus' death...

You can do the maths.

Yeah, doesn’t seem all that likely. When you consider all the elements of the Jesus myth that were ripped off from Pagan legends, it just gets even more dubious.

Sleazy P. Martini wrote: The only source we have outside the Bible as being corroborating is Josephus. He lists Jesus in 2 different passages. The first is acknowledged to be “partially” authentic by most Biblical scholars. This is as it appeared in Josephus' work, Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 (called the Testimonium Flavianum) with the likely additions in bold.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

The second reference by Josephus is counted as authentic. It is as follows in Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1. More of a passing reference.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Notice Josephus saying the so-called Christ as opposed to proclaiming him in the previous statement. This is one thing that leads scholars to believe that the other has additions. Josephus was Jewish, so flat out calling him the Christ would have been out of character.

In my opinion, based on the writings of Josephus, Jesus was a real person living at that time and the corroborating evidence that we have, back up much of Josephus' writings.

I don’t count Josephus' writings as proof of Jesus' existence. He was born is 37 CE and makes no eyewitness claim of Jesus' existence, only hearsay. Furthermore, his accounts were written in 93 CE, 3 years after the last Gospel was written. Definately didn’t see Jesus in his lifetime and could have easily ripped information from rumours and the Gospels themselves.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm

The Gospels were not written very long after his death. 30-60 years isnt any time at all in terms of history. If things about him were false people alive during tht time would be alive to speak against it,

It was very long for a Jewish man living in those times. Like I said, the life expectancy was 30... only 5% of the population was above age 40. Considering he supposedly died at about ~33BCE and they must have been at least pushing 20 at the time... Mark would have had to have written his Gospel at at least 50 (pushing 60) and John at least 70 years old, something only 2% of men attained in those days. Not to mention John was supposed to have been BEHEADED by Herod shortly after Jesus established his ministry, about 30-40CE.

Yeah, killed in 30-40CE and writing his Gospel at 90CE... sounds legit.

Why wait so long to write the Gospels anyway? The closer to Jesus' ressurection, the more accurate they would have been.

Mark was said to be written 64AD its said Jesus died around like 32-34 AD, surely people would have been around to claim the person never existed. I think most people believe he existed, just not that he was God.

Astro wrote:

ilikeitwhenyoudie wrote:

Astro wrote:

ilikeitwhenyoudie wrote: I personally don’t think Jesus existed. Outside of the Gospels, there are no eyewitness accounts of his existence. The Gospels themselves were written long after Jesus' supposed death. Mark has written was is dated to be the earliest Gospel - around 70 CE, and the last is John at about 90 CE. So considering the facts that

1. Jesus was supposed to have been killed in his 30’s or 40’s.
2. Jesus was supposedly born about 4BCE.
3. The disciples must have been at least teenaged in the Gospel accounts.
4. The average life expectancy for a Jewish man was about 30 years in those days.
5. The Gospels are dated 30-60 years after Jesus' death...

You can do the maths.

Yeah, doesn’t seem all that likely. When you consider all the elements of the Jesus myth that were ripped off from Pagan legends, it just gets even more dubious.

Sleazy P. Martini wrote: The only source we have outside the Bible as being corroborating is Josephus. He lists Jesus in 2 different passages. The first is acknowledged to be “partially” authentic by most Biblical scholars. This is as it appeared in Josephus' work, Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 (called the Testimonium Flavianum) with the likely additions in bold.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

The second reference by Josephus is counted as authentic. It is as follows in Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1. More of a passing reference.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Notice Josephus saying the so-called Christ as opposed to proclaiming him in the previous statement. This is one thing that leads scholars to believe that the other has additions. Josephus was Jewish, so flat out calling him the Christ would have been out of character.

In my opinion, based on the writings of Josephus, Jesus was a real person living at that time and the corroborating evidence that we have, back up much of Josephus' writings.

I don’t count Josephus' writings as proof of Jesus' existence. He was born is 37 CE and makes no eyewitness claim of Jesus' existence, only hearsay. Furthermore, his accounts were written in 93 CE, 3 years after the last Gospel was written. Definately didn’t see Jesus in his lifetime and could have easily ripped information from rumours and the Gospels themselves.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm

The Gospels were not written very long after his death. 30-60 years isnt any time at all in terms of history. If things about him were false people alive during tht time would be alive to speak against it,

It was very long for a Jewish man living in those times. Like I said, the life expectancy was 30... only 5% of the population was above age 40. Considering he supposedly died at about ~33BCE and they must have been at least pushing 20 at the time... Mark would have had to have written his Gospel at at least 50 (pushing 60) and John at least 70 years old, something only 2% of men attained in those days. Not to mention John was supposed to have been BEHEADED by Herod shortly after Jesus established his ministry, about 30-40CE.

Yeah, killed in 30-40CE and writing his Gospel at 90CE... sounds legit.

Why wait so long to write the Gospels anyway? The closer to Jesus' ressurection, the more accurate they would have been.

Mark was said to be written 64AD its said Jesus died around like 32-34 AD, surely people would have been around to claim the person never existed. I think most people believe he existed, just not that he was God.

What kind of claim would they be able to make to claim that he didn’t exist? His followers didn’t give exact dates for most of the events in the Gospels, after all.

ilikeitwhenyoudie wrote:

Astro wrote:

ilikeitwhenyoudie wrote:

Astro wrote:

ilikeitwhenyoudie wrote: I personally don’t think Jesus existed. Outside of the Gospels, there are no eyewitness accounts of his existence. The Gospels themselves were written long after Jesus' supposed death. Mark has written was is dated to be the earliest Gospel - around 70 CE, and the last is John at about 90 CE. So considering the facts that

1. Jesus was supposed to have been killed in his 30’s or 40’s.
2. Jesus was supposedly born about 4BCE.
3. The disciples must have been at least teenaged in the Gospel accounts.
4. The average life expectancy for a Jewish man was about 30 years in those days.
5. The Gospels are dated 30-60 years after Jesus' death...

You can do the maths.

Yeah, doesn’t seem all that likely. When you consider all the elements of the Jesus myth that were ripped off from Pagan legends, it just gets even more dubious.

Sleazy P. Martini wrote: The only source we have outside the Bible as being corroborating is Josephus. He lists Jesus in 2 different passages. The first is acknowledged to be “partially” authentic by most Biblical scholars. This is as it appeared in Josephus' work, Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 (called the Testimonium Flavianum) with the likely additions in bold.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

The second reference by Josephus is counted as authentic. It is as follows in Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1. More of a passing reference.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Notice Josephus saying the so-called Christ as opposed to proclaiming him in the previous statement. This is one thing that leads scholars to believe that the other has additions. Josephus was Jewish, so flat out calling him the Christ would have been out of character.

In my opinion, based on the writings of Josephus, Jesus was a real person living at that time and the corroborating evidence that we have, back up much of Josephus' writings.

I don’t count Josephus' writings as proof of Jesus' existence. He was born is 37 CE and makes no eyewitness claim of Jesus' existence, only hearsay. Furthermore, his accounts were written in 93 CE, 3 years after the last Gospel was written. Definately didn’t see Jesus in his lifetime and could have easily ripped information from rumours and the Gospels themselves.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html
http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm

The Gospels were not written very long after his death. 30-60 years isnt any time at all in terms of history. If things about him were false people alive during tht time would be alive to speak against it,

It was very long for a Jewish man living in those times. Like I said, the life expectancy was 30... only 5% of the population was above age 40. Considering he supposedly died at about ~33BCE and they must have been at least pushing 20 at the time... Mark would have had to have written his Gospel at at least 50 (pushing 60) and John at least 70 years old, something only 2% of men attained in those days. Not to mention John was supposed to have been BEHEADED by Herod shortly after Jesus established his ministry, about 30-40CE.

Yeah, killed in 30-40CE and writing his Gospel at 90CE... sounds legit.

Why wait so long to write the Gospels anyway? The closer to Jesus' ressurection, the more accurate they would have been.

Mark was said to be written 64AD its said Jesus died around like 32-34 AD, surely people would have been around to claim the person never existed. I think most people believe he existed, just not that he was God.

What kind of claim would they be able to make to claim that he didn’t exist? His followers didn’t give exact dates for most of the events in the Gospels, after all.

In Luke is says Jesus was about thirty, most scholars say his ministry was about 2 to 2 and a half years. If we know when he was born, and that he started his ministry when he was 30 according to luke, we can deduce the rest. Not with pin point accuracy, but basically.

Nigga what do you think?

You can’t break me

Keep in mind that it took time to write as they had to do it all by hand, and many people wouldn’t have the means to do it. That would be one of the reasons that they were written later.

Also, there would still have been people around who knew the stories and who could have corrected them if there were errors or added information. Although, they probably didn’t actually get to read the finished writings as there would have likely have been very few copies made (again, because they had to each be done by hand)

I suspect that the Gospels were a compilation of the various oral stories that were being spread at the time by both first hand experience as well as being taught by elders.

TiggerLover wrote: Keep in mind that it took time to write as they had to do it all by hand, and many people wouldn’t have the means to do it. That would be one of the reasons that they were written later.

Bullshit. The class of scribe existed far before the birth of Christ, it wouldn’t take 90 years to write a book of history even with multiple authors.

The Bible is what it is; a historical text romanticized for the legend. Christianity didn’t exist when Jesus was alive; followers of Jesus were Jews. After his death, it started as a cult and grew due to the later, and somewhat ironic, acceptance of the Roman Empire.

“If you take sexual advantage of her, you’re going to burn in a very special level of Hell. A level they reserve for child molesters... and people who talk at the theater."
- Shepard Book of Firefly/Serenity fame

Just to clarify:
1. Jesus died at 33
2. Those other pagan stories were actually ripped off Jesus.
3. People nowadays are too obsessed with physical proof, especially when it comes to religion. But when its something like einstein’s theories like how nothing can go faster than light without rapid expanding of the mass and all that stuff, we automatically assume it is correct.
4. Imo although scientists try to disprove the existance of God, they will ultimately hit a brick wall. And in hitting this brick wall, they will discover God. And although they may try to deny this fact with their complicated sciencey talk, they cant hide the fact.


This is just my opinion. I am just putting this out their for thought.

WARNING: nothing people say will change my mind because the bible says that if u deny thy father, he will deny u at the gates of heaven (paraphrasing of course :P) so dont try to persuade me otherwise.

[img]http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q169/Zhanzo/tumblr_lakwmnaOoz1qbhnrvo1_500.jpg[/img]

Horus was born on “December 25th” or the winter solstice of a virgin called Mery and he was “crucified” between two thieves. Am I ringing any bells yet? He had the same amount of disciples too, and ironically enough he was the “sun” god.

Hmm... Sounds familiar. Egypt is a lot older than Christianity. Herp!