Did Jesus exist? (Poll)

[blastula]

I think its somewhat more likely he existed than not, mainly because of Paul's writings. Paul is clearly a real person and it does look he's referring to someone who did exist and other people knew about, at least more likely than referring to a mythical person.

 

[none]

and you know paul is real because he's in the bible and the stories of eden, global flood, exodus are verified because they are in the bible
wtf?

 

[blastula]

Because it makes more sense than that he didn't. He didn't write his letter for the "Bible," they were added there later. Christianity did exist and did spread, and so someone had to be spreading it, there had to be people doing what Paul is describing in his letters. There is nothing extraordinary about Paul's existence.

 

[none]

Because it makes more sense than that he didn't. He didn't write his letter for the "Bible," they were added there later. Christianity did exist and did spread, and so someone had to be spreading it, there had to be people doing what Paul is describing in his letters. There is nothing extraordinary about Paul's existence.

which is more likely Paul had an experience with a celestial being who was flesh or Paul was an invented person for purposes of deniability for someone who accused the status quo of injustice?

 

[blastula]

He had visions, nothing out of ordinary. The deniability argument seems like a reach, defies Occam's Razor.

 

[none]

He had visions, nothing out of ordinary. The deniability argument seems like a reach, defies Occam's Razor.

of course because resurrection is well documented by an anonymous person who invented Paul

 

[blastula]

That real people write about believing in supernatural events is well documented.

 

[ruby sparks]

which is more likely Paul had an experience with a celestial being who was flesh or Paul was an invented person for purposes of deniability for someone who accused the status quo of injustice?

You seem to regularly mix up two different issues, 'woo' and 'people who believe in woo'. Your question doesn't even make sense as a result. Of course Paul didn't have an experience with a celestial being who was flesh, because nobody ever has, as far as we can tell.

 

[none]

which is more likely Paul had an experience with a celestial being who was flesh or Paul was an invented person for purposes of deniability for someone who accused the status quo of injustice?

You seem to regularly mix up two different issues, 'woo' and 'people who believe in woo'.

wtf? the story is woo and the people who believe it are deluded

 

[none]

That real people write about believing in supernatural events is well documented.

yeah occam's razor, is it likely that a supernatural being was flesh recorded by an antagonist to the powers of justice at the time was invented for the purposes of deniability or historical??

 

[ruby sparks]

which is more likely Paul had an experience with a celestial being who was flesh or Paul was an invented person for purposes of deniability for someone who accused the status quo of injustice?

You seem to regularly mix up two different issues, 'woo' and 'people who believe in woo'.

wtf? the story is woo and the people who believe it are deluded

Hey, I've got a question for you instead. Suppose a new member at a forum gets a notification calling them a 'stupid shit' after their first post in a thread on this topic, apparently from another user. Is it possible that it wasn't really that other user who wrote it? Hypothetically.

 

[none]

wtf? the story is woo and the people who believe it are deluded

Hey, I've got a question for you instead. Suppose a new member at a forum gets a notification calling them a 'stupid shit' after their first post in a thread on this topic, apparently from another user. Is it possible that it wasn't really that other user who wrote it? Hypothetically.

theoretically you were complaining about the statistics of jesus existence by what's his name
stupid shit was about the complaint not the hypothetical you
statistics can be argued infinitely, maybe

 

[whollygoats]

Because it makes more sense than that he didn't. He didn't write his letter for the "Bible," they were added there later. Christianity did exist and did spread, and so someone had to be spreading it, there had to be people doing what Paul is describing in his letters. There is nothing extraordinary about Paul's existence.

Yep... Even 'Paul' attests to them in 2 Cor 11. Shiploads of "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ." It seems that 'Paul' was not unique in flogging Jesus throughout his corner of the ancient world, though his interpretation might have been.

 

[blastula]

Because it makes more sense than that he didn't. He didn't write his letter for the "Bible," they were added there later. Christianity did exist and did spread, and so someone had to be spreading it, there had to be people doing what Paul is describing in his letters. There is nothing extraordinary about Paul's existence.

Yep... Even 'Paul' attests to them in 2 Cor 11. Shiploads of "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ." It seems that 'Paul' was not unique in flogging Jesus throughout his corner of the ancient world, though his interpretation might have been.

Not speaking to his theology.

 

[blastula]

That real people write about believing in supernatural events is well documented.

yeah occam's razor, is it likely that a supernatural being was flesh recorded by an antagonist to the powers of justice at the time was invented for the purposes of deniability or historical??

You keep changing the subject, which is whether these people existed not whether magic powers exist. That real humans tell lies or delusions about other real people is a rather well documented.

 

[none]

That real people write about believing in supernatural events is well documented.

yeah occam's razor, is it likely that a supernatural being was flesh recorded by an antagonist to the powers of justice at the time was invented for the purposes of deniability or historical??

You keep changing the subject, which is whether these people existed not whether magic powers exist. That real humans tell lies or delusions about other real people is a rather well documented.

historical jesus is biblical jesus
there is no distinction
you're talking about the same person whether there is any historical providence is what is debated
if you aren't talking about biblical jesus who do you think you are talking about?

 

[blastula]

Was there no historical Sai Baba because stories were told that he did magic?

 

[none]

Was there no historical Sai Baba because stories were told that he did magic?

ahh, you want to change the subject
I am asking you who you think you are talking about when it comes to Jesus..
who do you think you are talking about??

 

[blastula]

It's the same subject. You are claiming doubt about historicity because there are supernatural claims in stories about Jesus. What's the difference to historicity of Sai Baba then?

 

[none]

It's the same subject. You are claiming doubt about historicity because there are supernatural claims in stories about Jesus. What's the difference to historicity of Sai Baba then?

I don't know, its your derail
I doubt the biblical tale of jesus because there is no verification of the story
of the main themes of the bible Eden, global flood, exodus, and Christ there is no verification and what little we do know lies in contradiction to the tales
just as I don't believe in the supernatural because it hasn't been confirmed