Is Jesus the Circular Messiah?

I'm a critic, and I dispute his existence.And once again, even if the ENTIRE world believes something to be true, does not mean it is

---

I hunt for the truth

There is no evidence that contradicts the flying spaghetti monster either. The point is finding SUPPORTING evidence. And the statement is a lot, but NOT self evident. Of course they are, how could we ever have doubted. And just to be absolutely clear, this was sarcasm, so don't go crying "Hallelujah! a convert" just yet.

---

I hunt for the truth

Interesting comment.So you are saying that if He did not live in the way the Bible portrays then He did not live? I will be getting around to this after we resolve the first issue above.Ray

Yes, a very good comment as well. No he's NOT, he is saying that even IF there was a guy named jesus, and even IF that guy was the inspiration for all the stories in the bible, that doesn't mean ANY of those stories happened. Unless you have independent evidence of ANY of the acts jesus performed according to the bible, they are just stories and nothing more. Since it's the same issue, I'd say you're free to move on.

---

I hunt for the truth

Your belief is refuted by the critics who are scholars who accept His existence. Very few scholars of any persuasion deny that Christ lived.Ray

Appeal to Authority. Show me the evidence Jesus lived and acted as described in the bible. Then I will shut up, until then I will keep harassing you to provide evidence. And don't go crying "Harassment!" now, I don't mean in that sense.

---

I hunt for the truth

You have (admittedly) changed the premise. I have no quarrel with the alleged fact that you have established. This fact says two-thirds of the world believes Jesus lived but they do not believe in His alleged Divinity. Of course the important aspect is "the whole world" which includes all the other great religions of the world. These others could not possibly be expected to accept the Divinity of Christ. With all of this said: what is your point? (As I can see it is below.) Since you changed the premise from Biblical acceptance to alleged Divinity of Christ, which included the predictable opinions of hundreds of millions of Muslims and Hindus and Confucious followers, it does not affect my point. My point was that persons from all walks of life, social status, economic status and education hold the Bible to be true. No other ancient Text enjoys the level of acceptance that the Bible enjoys. Based on this diverse level of acceptance the Bible, which contains many claims as to what persons were thinking, is recognized to be the Divinely inspired word of God.In response opponents have said: popularity does not necessarily mean that something is, in fact, true. This rebuttal is true and could be true in a general sense. We know a mass of persons could be wrong. But the rebuttal misses or evades the specific point in this case. Acceptance (= defined to mean the diversity specified) testifies to veracity.And your data supports the fact that most persons accept that Jesus lived. And we have three separate issues going on here: (1) Biblical acceptance. (2) Existence of Christ. (3) Divinity of Christ.I would say that #1 supports #2 and #3. To include the beliefs of the whole world is illegitimate since the opinions of non-Christians is entirely predictable. But the same is legitimate support of #2 (Note: I only said "support"). My appeal says nothing about most populous. It is anchored in multi-level diversity.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : add some italicsEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Right, seems we have to go and explain some stuff again.... Since your point is in effect an appeal to authority, I think it rather does, since the more people believe something, the truer it becomes. (By your standards anyway) Of course not, Jews are all on the bottom layers of our societies, as are Muslims and any other religion you can think of. You see, you keep citing the great diversity amongst Christians as somehow supporting the bible, yet when it comes to these other religions, you assert they aren't as diverse as Christianity. Which, of course, is completely false. Muslims Jews, and indeed, almost all major religions will be as diverse as Christianity, if not more so. Yes. And for the umpteenth time: "Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true or not." Will you finally come up with some supporting evidence for your claims? Ooh, so you DID get the message. But failed to understand it.....It is ALWAYS true. something being true can ONLY be established by supporting evidence, and by NOTHING else. And without ANY evidence to support there claims, they most likely are. NO IT DOESN'T. It doesn't matter who or how many, or how diverse or whatever these people are. People believing something is NOT evidence of that beliefs veracity. Yes, and the same goes for this. Popularity has NOTHING to do with something being true. Perhaps, but The existence of Christ is something different entirely form the existence of a man named Jesus. I think no one will deny that it is very plausible for there being a man named Jesus around that specific time. It being a very common name and all. The problem lies in the fact that there is NO evidence for ANYTHING that the Christ did in the bible. Yes, if one accepts the bible to be true, then it follows that one also thinks Christ lived and that he was divine. The opinions of fundamental Christians are also entirely predictable, should we leave those out as well? And it isn't even that. Yes, and as pointed out to you, Jews and Muslims are as diverse, if not more so, than Christians.

---

I hunt for the truth

Dear God Almighty Ray, your understanding of the discipline of history is about as poor as your understanding of science.What people accept as being true about the past is purely by degrees of plausbility and NOT by certainty, this is especially true abut ancient history.The existence of Jesus is taken on faith. That there was a wandering preacher called Jesus in first century Palestine is not at all implausible, in fact, given that Jesus was a very popular name and that religious preachers of a huge range of religions were active as well, then it is highly likely that there was a preacher called Jesus wandering around Palestine 2000 years ago.However, when we look at the claims made for Jesus in the New Testament then it is a different matter. Many of the stories about Jesus, from an historical perspective, are highly implausible, and this is where the doubts come in.Jesus the wandering preacher may have lived, big deal, so what.Jesus of the New Testament, from an historical perspective, is more likely to be a fictional character that may or may not be based on a real person.The thing is, again from an historical perspective, we will never know for certain which, if any, actually did exist.This is the nature of historical research Ray, it is much the same as scientific research, as in the fact that historical and scientific theories are NEVER proven.Maybe when you are finished your Earth shaking, much anticipated anti-evolution diatripe, you could take an introduction to history course at you local college, then perhaps you can see the basic errors you are making.Edited by Brian, : spellin

To be pedantic, I would disagree with this.There is indeed evidence for everything Jesus is said to have done in the Bible, it is the quality of the evidence that is the problem.There is, of course, no EXTERNAL evidence for anything Jesus was said to have done in the NT.

Yes, of course, if you consider the bible evidence, which I don't. I don't say superman comics are evidence that superman existed either. But I get your point.

---

I hunt for the truth

You do know ray that this statement,holds true no matter what religion or holy script you apply it to? You don't believe there was a man named Muhammed? Or a king named Budah? Or a scholar named Confuscious? There is plenty of supporting evidence for the existence of all three. The point that you make is just as valid no matter what religion you apply it to,since as you so elegontly state it. The opinions of christians is entirely predictable in a general sense so could be wrong. Your entire argument is nothing but a broad and unknowing brush off,of every other person's thoughts but your own. You should also add, and ~1500 years of mobile military conquests. That is after all part of the reason why christianity shares such a wide dispersment and level of acceptance. To the victor goes the spoils.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

I do admit that I changed the premise, I did so to make a point. Most of the world does not believe in the Divinity of Christ. As such, given your fancy for the appeal to popularity I was hoping for you to admit that christ was not divine. Ok, not really; I expected you to retract your appeal to popularity. No they don't. Read up on the religions, majority of the population does not believe that Jesus was divine. Many claim he was, most claim he wasn't so the Bible certainly remains in question. If your appeal to popularity stands then Jesus was not divine and further claims of truth in the bible can be examined for popularity. What parts? Islam, Christianity, and Judaism (ignoring the hundreds or thousands of denominations contained within them) don't accept the same parts as truth. If appeal to popularity stands then at the very least we can safely reject Jesus as divine. Again, your appeal to popularity conflicts with what you call truth. Majory of the world rejects this viewpoint so I wonder if you plan to retract the viewpoint or the appeal? Though I would accept that many diverse religions accept parts of the bible, (for example that Jesus did live) nearly everyone rejects the conclusions your faith has lead you to. Since you appear to say that might makes right I feel I am correct to ask "That being said how does this affect your appeal to popularity?"

The "agree-with-me-or-you-are-uneducated" card. The fact that you are an Atheist-evolutionist and I am a Christian-creationist explains your opinion concerning my understanding of history and science.Do you know what historic certainty is, Brian? Concerning Jesus HC exists. Concerning other ancient histories it is, most of the time, lost.Plausibility, as defined by your usage (message-wide), is ad hoc. The concept purposely fails to take a clear and definitive position in service to an agenda of Skepticism. But your Atheism, according to your own testimony, is a clear and unshakeable position based on the evidence. The main point here is that the ad hoc position presupposes the facticity of doubt and uncertainty. But your personal status as an Atheist, which is based on the same database of evidence available to everyone, is not threatened by any doubt or uncertainty.Admitting to the possibility of uncertainty is ad hoc. You are not agnostic. This is why plausibility, in this particular subject and context (Biblical veracity), is an ad hoc tactic attempting to deceive Christians into accepting a false presupposition. The agenda in service to Skepticism is seen and supported. Blue box comment is a claim that presupposes no evidence to exist supporting the claim that Christ lived. If this were true where did anyone obtain the idea that Jesus lived? What is your source for the Jesus you speak of? Again, the agenda in service to Skepticism is supported.We have, of course, studied the claims of the N.T. Anytime that you are ready to get specific let me know. "May or may not" Which is it? Of course since you are an Atheist you have made up your mind (= ad hoc uncertainty tactic exposed and supported).All this says is that St. Matthew and St. Mark and St. Luke and St. John and St. Paul (= five separate sources) are liars. We explain your belief by remembering that you are an Atheist. Since we already know that Atheism believes N.T. authors to be liars what is your point? Hundreds of millions of persons from diverse backrounds disagree. What evidence do you have that said sources are liars or deluded? Plausibility is rendered subjective. You have made claims thus far and nothing else.You have sided with a wandering Rabbi to exist and nothing else. Again, what is the source for this claim? Skepticism and Agnosticism are not presupposed by History or Science. Your "NEVER proven" claim is ad hoc, and I have explained why.Since the most vocal and vituperative critics of the Bible (= Jesus Seminar "scholars," which includes Atheists) agree that Jesus lived, your opinion, in addition to being ad hoc and deceitful, exists within the lunatic fringe. LOL!RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : minor grammar

Where is the evidence that these individuals existed and that they wrote the books attributed to them? We don't believe them to be liars but we want evidence that what they or whoever wrote the books is telling actual accounts. I would imagine you would consider the Illiad as mythology. So why should the N T be totally accepted as truth when there is no more evidence of it than evidence of the Illiad.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969