Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Jesus Christ: Madman or Something Worse?

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 9:08:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You know you've got a sh!tty argument for divinity when it can be applied Branch Davidian FAMILIES who died for David Koresh (Waco Massacre).

Going by sheer numbers and sacrifice, Koresh is a better candidate for divinity than Christ.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 5:44:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. Jesus never proclaimed that he was the ONLY son of God. Per him, everyone was a child of God. That he called God the father meant only that he was trying to put forth a unifying religion for what were some very different sects of Jews at the time.

2. Reciprocity - the Christian version is important because it is the 1st recorded version written in positive language - do unto instead of thou shall not or some such thing.

cults and megachurches are bad,,,yeah, yeah, yeah, but so is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 10:35:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 5:44:57 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
1. Jesus never proclaimed that he was the ONLY son of God. Per him, everyone was a child of God. That he called God the father meant only that he was trying to put forth a unifying religion for what were some very different sects of Jews at the time.

2. Reciprocity - the Christian version is important because it is the 1st recorded version written in positive language - do unto instead of thou shall not or some such thing.

cults and megachurches are bad,,,yeah, yeah, yeah, but so is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

One main point of the video was that an all knowing savior would be able to do a lot more good for humanity (i.e. medical knowledge about bacteria, etc.) than Jesus is said to have done. I"d be interested to hear your thoughts concerning that point.
Amica
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 6:06:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:35:57 AM, Magicr wrote:


Thoughts?

I can only take a stance from the islamic perspective, as I am a Muslim. According to my faith's teachings, your question would never exist as Islam teaches that:
1) Jesus pbuh was only a human, and one of the most important prophets
2) He never claimed to be divine
3) He was able to perform miracles only because Allah (God) SWT allowed him to, and supported him with the help of Archangel
4) Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel, but not divine
etc.

Hence, in Islam, Jesus pbuh is neither a madman nor something worse.
I think that Christians would be the only ones struggling with your question.
tigers2005
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 5:07:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Whether or not you agree that Jesus was the Divine Son of God, you have to acknowledge that he preached peace. Sounds like a genius to me.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 5:44:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:35:24 AM, Magicr wrote:
At 12/26/2012 5:44:57 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
1. Jesus never proclaimed that he was the ONLY son of God. Per him, everyone was a child of God. That he called God the father meant only that he was trying to put forth a unifying religion for what were some very different sects of Jews at the time.

2. Reciprocity - the Christian version is important because it is the 1st recorded version written in positive language - do unto instead of thou shall not or some such thing.

cults and megachurches are bad,,,yeah, yeah, yeah, but so is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

One main point of the video was that an all knowing savior would be able to do a lot more good for humanity (i.e. medical knowledge about bacteria, etc.) than Jesus is said to have done. I"d be interested to hear your thoughts concerning that point.

Jesus, or the 20 or so folks who were morphed into Jesus, were hippie revolutionaries (the sermon on the mount, Matthew 4, was a prison break a la Selma, AL). He/They did alright for the time.

As I said, Jesus no more claimed to be an all-knowing savior than I am claiming he is. At best, he claimed to be a prophet. Others have tried to beef up his resume, but Jesus wasn't much of a talker. He was more of an @ss-kicking anarchist...at the very least, he looked out for the poor and down-trodden at the time and chastised those ho took advantage of them. Hard to fault a guy for that kind of activity...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 8:31:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 5:07:32 PM, tigers2005 wrote:
Whether or not you agree that Jesus was the Divine Son of God, you have to acknowledge that he preached peace. Sounds like a genius to me.

Historically it is a 100% a MYTH and whatever it did, it only did it in the various preferred Story books!

Buddah preached Peace & Love so Story book jebus was not unique and the Magician DYNAMO also literally ' walked on water! ' as I observed via TV a few nights ago, LOL!
tigers2005
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 8:45:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am sorry but Jesus 100% existed. There is no denying that. Or at least my word is as good as yours. But I do believe there are books addressing both sides of the issue. If you would like to make a claim then I would expect that first you read them.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 9:37:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 8:45:34 PM, tigers2005 wrote:
I am sorry but Jesus 100% existed. There is no denying that. Or at least my word is as good as yours. But I do believe there are books addressing both sides of the issue. If you would like to make a claim then I would expect that first you read them.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

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.

http://www.nobeliefs.com...

&

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com...)

Your turn!
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 10:38:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:35:57 AM, Magicr wrote:


Thoughts?

If He is not the Son of God and there is not a judgment day then His teaching is immoral.

He is, and there will be.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 12:44:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 10:38:31 AM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:35:57 AM, Magicr wrote:


Thoughts?

If He is not the Son of God and there is not a judgment day then His teaching is immoral.

He is, and there will be.

First, do you have any evidence supporting this later claim? If so, what?

Additionally, would you consider the worst possible suffering for every living thing bad or evil? If not, why not?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 1:44:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 10:35:24 AM, Magicr wrote:
One main point of the video was that an all knowing savior would be able to do a lot more good for humanity (i.e. medical knowledge about bacteria, etc.) than Jesus is said to have done. I"d be interested to hear your thoughts concerning that point.

This is a rather poor point in my opinion. Jesus main goal was not to educate people about medical knowledge. Its hard to imagine him doing "more good for humanity" than being an all sufficient savior.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 1:47:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I"m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don"t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic " on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg " or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."

C.S. Lewis
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 2:16:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is not, do unto other as you'd have them do to you; it's love you neighbor as yourself. This is tremendously different.

Morality is for imperfect men. Christ was not a moral teacher, he is God. He came to fulfill the Law, live a perfect life (something we know very little about), and die for the remission of sins.

Morals are useless without love, and count for nothing. Christ taught this, but not as a guideline, as an example of something we cannot fathom on our own.

Either way, all of the examples of immorality on this video are laughable, if they weren't so offensive. They had to hyperextend the meaning of each teaching mentioned, in order make a feeble attempt at discreditiing Christ as an 'immoral' teacher, let alone God incarnite.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 2:44:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 2:16:49 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Morality is for imperfect men. Christ was not a moral teacher, he is God. He came to fulfill the Law, live a perfect life (something we know very little about), and die for the remission of sins.

Want to defend this claim? If you are, then send me a debate challenge with the resolution "Jesus is God". You are Pro and I Con. Make it 3 or 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, 72 hours in which you can post your response, and 1 week of voting period.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:32:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 2:44:27 PM, Clash wrote:
At 12/29/2012 2:16:49 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Morality is for imperfect men. Christ was not a moral teacher, he is God. He came to fulfill the Law, live a perfect life (something we know very little about), and die for the remission of sins.

Want to defend this claim? If you are, then send me a debate challenge with the resolution "Jesus is God". You are Pro and I Con. Make it 3 or 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, 72 hours in which you can post your response, and 1 week of voting period.

Would you debate the historic probability of the resurrection?
andrewkletzien
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:42:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 5:07:32 PM, tigers2005 wrote:
Whether or not you agree that Jesus was the Divine Son of God, you have to acknowledge that he preached peace. Sounds like a genius to me.

He preaches an unpractical and impossible "peace," of which we can all be found guilty. It has been shown impossible to love your neighbor as yourself, and for good normative reasons. His worst breach of faux-peace is vicarious redemption. I did not ask for his saving, although his followers tell me I don't have a choice in that. The very basic tenet of the entire religion -- the idea that we can put our sins and responsibilities on another -- is immoral and, in my opinion, quite vine ripened towards destruction and conflict.
Andrew Kletzien
Loyola University Chicago Undergraduate Class of 2015
Founder & President, LUC Secular Student Alliance
www.facebook.com/akletzien
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:45:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 2:44:27 PM, Clash wrote:
At 12/29/2012 2:16:49 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Morality is for imperfect men. Christ was not a moral teacher, he is God. He came to fulfill the Law, live a perfect life (something we know very little about), and die for the remission of sins.

Want to defend this claim? If you are, then send me a debate challenge with the resolution "Jesus is God". You are Pro and I Con. Make it 3 or 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, 72 hours in which you can post your response, and 1 week of voting period.


Nope, Christ doesn't need my sinful grace given *ss defending the truth of his divinity. Besides, I genuinely disbeleive I could ever convince a person of something like that..

My post was strictly in regards to what Christ taught; because I've been made to believe it, doesn't grant me the ability to give sight to the blind. To me it's common sense and scripture is more then sufficient; to you, it's offensive drivel, and you could care less what a 2,000 year old book has to say.

Nothing would be accomplished, and I would be forced forfeit to time restraints anyways.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:47:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:32:55 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/29/2012 2:44:27 PM, Clash wrote:
At 12/29/2012 2:16:49 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Morality is for imperfect men. Christ was not a moral teacher, he is God. He came to fulfill the Law, live a perfect life (something we know very little about), and die for the remission of sins.

Want to defend this claim? If you are, then send me a debate challenge with the resolution "Jesus is God". You are Pro and I Con. Make it 3 or 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, 72 hours in which you can post your response, and 1 week of voting period.

Would you debate the historic probability of the resurrection?

I'm not really interested in this topic, and nor do I have enough knowledge on this subject. Moreover, I will probably be voted down by several Christians anyways. But thanks for the offer.
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 3:58:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:45:54 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 12/29/2012 2:44:27 PM, Clash wrote:
At 12/29/2012 2:16:49 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Morality is for imperfect men. Christ was not a moral teacher, he is God. He came to fulfill the Law, live a perfect life (something we know very little about), and die for the remission of sins.

Want to defend this claim? If you are, then send me a debate challenge with the resolution "Jesus is God". You are Pro and I Con. Make it 3 or 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, 72 hours in which you can post your response, and 1 week of voting period.


Nope, Christ doesn't need my sinful grace given *ss defending the truth of his divinity. Besides, I genuinely disbeleive I could ever convince a person of something like that..


My post was strictly in regards to what Christ taught; because I've been made to believe it, doesn't grant me the ability to give sight to the blind. To me it's common sense and scripture is more then sufficient; to you, it's offensive drivel, and you could care less what a 2,000 year old book has to say.


Nothing would be accomplished, and I would be forced forfeit to time restraints anyways.

If this is the case, then you don't need to send me any debate challenges. Have a nice day.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:06:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:42:56 PM, andrewkletzien wrote:
At 12/28/2012 5:07:32 PM, tigers2005 wrote:
Whether or not you agree that Jesus was the Divine Son of God, you have to acknowledge that he preached peace. Sounds like a genius to me.

He preaches an unpractical and impossible "peace," of which we can all be found guilty. It has been shown impossible to love your neighbor as yourself, and for good normative reasons. His worst breach of faux-peace is vicarious redemption. I did not ask for his saving, although his followers tell me I don't have a choice in that. The very basic tenet of the entire religion -- the idea that we can put our sins and responsibilities on another -- is immoral and, in my opinion, quite vine ripened towards destruction and conflict.


Oh, so in other words, you only know what other atheists have told you about Christianity, and never really took the time to explore the scriptures yourself.

No doubt, you'll claim that you have, and that you're actually a greek f*ckin scholar.. but no honest person here will buy that.

First, like actually just posted in another thread moments ago, Christ didn't preach Peace in the manner you think. He came to bring peace to his sheep, and to rid them of there fear of death, and sin. He free'd his people from themselves.

On a global aspect however, he came to bring the truth, which in our sad sad case, results in disruption..

Matthew 10:34
34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

This doesn't mean he came to start wars, no, this means that the Gospel will cause conflict with those who reject him; namely-- You. There would be no peace if he gave the choice to all men to choose him freely, because no one would. Not me, not you, not anyone.

We all sin against God in our hearts, before we ever sin against another person. And every sin we've commited against our neighbor, was first an offense to God, and secondly to his creation. He is the only one who can wipe the sin out, while our neighbor can only get over that it happened; with an apology.

It's not wrong to seek forgiveness from those you've sinned against, it's actaully encouraged up an down the scriptures. But, it doesn't stop there, and most people are not as forgiving as God is.

We all suffer the immediate consequences of our sin this life. If i lie to my wife, and she finds out, I'm in trouble.. I will suffer saddness, regret, and maybe even anger (at myself). I will have hurt my wife, and I will have created distrust.. How has Christ relieved me of this punishment? He hasn't, only a reassurance, that those sinful deeds I commit, though they yeild painful consequences, will not be counted against me when my entire life is presented openly before God in the heavenly court.

We cannot put our sins on another, and we cannot choose to accept Christ. Christ chooses to save of some from their sin, and they have no choice but to accept it.

John 15:16
16 You did not choose Me but I chose you...

Romans 9:16
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:09:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:47:26 PM, Clash wrote:
At 12/29/2012 3:32:55 PM, stubs wrote:
Would you debate the historic probability of the resurrection?

I'm not really interested in this topic, and nor do I have enough knowledge on this subject. Moreover, I will probably be voted down by several Christians anyways. But thanks for the offer.

You don't think Jesus claim to be God is that connected with the resurrection? You didn't think you would get voted down by several Christians in your debate with Paradox? Just one with me?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 4:11:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:42:56 PM, andrewkletzien wrote:

He preaches an unpractical and impossible "peace," of which we can all be found guilty. It has been shown impossible to love your neighbor as yourself, and for good normative reasons.

Could you give some examples?

His worst breach of faux-peace is vicarious redemption. I did not ask for his saving, although his followers tell me I don't have a choice in that.

Not all Christians believe that.

The very basic tenet of the entire religion -- the idea that we can put our sins and responsibilities on another -- is immoral and, in my opinion, quite vine ripened towards destruction and conflict.

It would be immoral unless the one who took the sacrifice did it voluntarily. Which is exactly what Christianity claims.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 11:00:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 4:06:31 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Matthew 10:34
34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

This doesn't mean he came to start wars, no, this means that the Gospel will cause conflict with those who reject him; namely-- You. There would be no peace if he gave the choice to all men to choose him freely, because no one would. Not me, not you, not anyone.

We all sin against God in our hearts, before we ever sin against another person. And every sin we've commited against our neighbor, was first an offense to God, and secondly to his creation. He is the only one who can wipe the sin out, while our neighbor can only get over that it happened; with an apology.

It's not wrong to seek forgiveness from those you've sinned against, it's actaully encouraged up an down the scriptures. But, it doesn't stop there, and most people are not as forgiving as God is.

We all suffer the immediate consequences of our sin this life. If i lie to my wife, and she finds out, I'm in trouble.. I will suffer saddness, regret, and maybe even anger (at myself). I will have hurt my wife, and I will have created distrust.. How has Christ relieved me of this punishment? He hasn't, only a reassurance, that those sinful deeds I commit, though they yeild painful consequences, will not be counted against me when my entire life is presented openly before God in the heavenly court.

We cannot put our sins on another, and we cannot choose to accept Christ. Christ chooses to save of some from their sin, and they have no choice but to accept it.

Matthew 10:38-42

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.


No, it means put up or shut up. Jesus was saying here that you're either down with the cause and willing to act, or you're a poser. He wasn't big on posers.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 2:51:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 3:32:55 PM, stubs wrote:
At 12/29/2012 2:44:27 PM, Clash wrote:
At 12/29/2012 2:16:49 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Morality is for imperfect men. Christ was not a moral teacher, he is God. He came to fulfill the Law, live a perfect life (something we know very little about), and die for the remission of sins.

Want to defend this claim? If you are, then send me a debate challenge with the resolution "Jesus is God". You are Pro and I Con. Make it 3 or 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, 72 hours in which you can post your response, and 1 week of voting period.

Would you debate the historic probability of the resurrection?

I'd be interested in debating that at some point.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 8:22:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 9:37:43 PM, Composer wrote:
At 12/28/2012 8:45:34 PM, tigers2005 wrote:
I am sorry but Jesus 100% existed. There is no denying that. Or at least my word is as good as yours. But I do believe there are books addressing both sides of the issue. If you would like to make a claim then I would expect that first you read them.

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

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.

http://www.nobeliefs.com...

&

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com...)

Your turn!

There are two pieces of evidence that Jesus was real which are neither hearsay, nor have been discredited. Considering his supposed importance, that's not much, but it's more than you've noted...infinitely more.

By all accounts, Jesus, like all other Nazarene Jews of the time, would have spoken Aramaic. Aramaic had no written form. By today's standards, Jesus was probably illiterate.

And, courts don't technically allow hearsay, but you can't un-ring a bell, and so if it gets in, it's considered.

Your argument is mostly correct, but unnecessarily biased. If Jesus did exist, he was a Buddha, just like Siddhattha Gotama.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...