Was Jesus Christ the Son of God, with extraordinary powers

[Guaranteed]

normally considered to be godlike?

Please avoid the flamewars. Just taking an honest poll, here.

[trotsky]

1. How about a "No, and we can't be sure he existed at all." option?

Many historians have that view.

[beam me up scottie]

2. BWAAA !

You beat me again!

[trotsky]

Better than smiting you again, isn't it?

'Cause I will! My finger's poised!

[beam me up scottie]

16. nobody here but

us chickens...(un-smiteable rubber chickens)
bwawk bwawk...

[Guaranteed]

3. We'll just throw that in with the "No's."

It basically has the same consequences.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Done.

nt

[BurtWorm]

33. Not really.

I'm not going to vote he was "just a man" if I think he was totally a myth. It's not the same thing at all. Not at all the same consequences.

[Guaranteed]

49. It's the negative to the original question.

No, he wasn't the son of God with extraordinary powers blah blah blah crap I have to put in because people play games.

But, you're right, I should have put "No, he wasn't the Son of God."

[China_cat]

4. I'd have to vote for that one.

[Walt Starr]

5. Ditto

There is no confirmation he even existed and the mytho-historical character depicted in the New Testament could be a composite.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Which historians?

and was that before or after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library?

[trotsky]

25. Here's a link

Scroll down to the "QUOTES FROM A FEW SCHOLARS" section.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[Zhade]

23. Good point!

NT!

[Shoeempress]

6. Yes Jesus was the son of god, much like all people would be the

sons and daughters of god. And I actually think that was what he was talking about.

[mzmolly]

11. Yep agreed. We all are.

He also said he was the "son of man." ;)

[Sapphire Blue]

41. I'm gonna 'deliberately misconstrue the poll' & agree with you.

:toast:

[Guaranteed]

13. You're deliberately misconstruing my poll.

Please don't do that.

[Shoeempress]

18. Then don't ask big questions and provide little answers.

[Guaranteed]

19. You knew exactly what I meant, and you changed the question.

You're being totally dishonest.

There was no need for any more answers than I provided in the context of the actual question.

You could answer the question as it is edited now, if you like.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

22. right?

damn. what is this a republican pollster? fuck.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

20. you mean like you just misconstrued the poll by editing A

man that was harsh.

[Guaranteed]

21. No, other people fucked it up and played games.

I had to clarify the answer, apparently. Was just too much for some folks.

[Walt Starr]

24. Maybe you should look in a mirror

because the problem was a narrow view of a broad question.

[Guaranteed]

47. No, the question you're thinking of wasn't the question I'm thinking of.

Sorry. If that's the question you want to ask, start your own poll.

[Walt Starr]

81. Then you should have been more specific. Instead, you were broad.

Ergo...

You figure it out.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

29. no you fucked it up.

when you edited it because you didnt like certain responses, mine included.

it's cool though, i forgive you ;)

prick.

[Guaranteed]

48. You were trying to change the QUESTION.

So I apparently had to clarify exactly what I was asking (which you, of course, already knew).

Respond however you like as long as you don't try to change what I'm asking.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

69. oh so I was the one who CHANGED THE QUESTION?

"Respond however you like as long as you don't try to change what I'm asking."

That's what we call projection. You changed the question then accused me of changing it.

Have fun playing with your poll.

[Guaranteed]

77. It's the same question as I was asking before.

Now it just sounds RIDICULOUS because you decided to start playing games with words and I had to clarify.

Have fun trying to manipulate other peoples' poll questions. Keep "thinking outside the box." Fuck just answering the damned question by its obvious meaning.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

15. that's what I believe too

:)

[Richard D]

7. How about a . . .

. . . "yes, aren't we all?"

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Amen

n/t

[mzmolly]

12. Yes, I'd combine options 1 and 2.

:hi:

[ultraist]

34. That is a Christian stance

Is it not?

Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Son (note capital) of God, right?

edit to add:
http://www.convert.org/differ.htm

To Christians, the central tenet of their religion is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, part of the trinity, the savior of souls who is the messiah. He is God's revelation through flesh. Jesus was, in Christian terms, God incarnate, God in the flesh who came to Earth to absorb the sins of humans and therefore free from sin those who accepted his divinity.

To Jews, whatever wonderful teacher and storyteller Jesus may have been, he was just a human, not the son of God (except in the metaphorical sense in which all humans are children of God). In the Jewish view, Jesus cannot save souls; only God can. Jesus did not, in the Jewish view, rise from the dead. He also did not absorb the sins of people. For Jews, sins are removed not by Jesus' atonement but by seeking forgiveness. Jews seek forgiveness from God for sins against God and from other people (not just God) for sins against those people. Seeking forgiveness requires a sincere sense of repenting but also seeking directly to redress the wrong done to someone. Sins are partially removed through prayer which replaced animal sacrifice as a way of relieving sins. They are also removed by correcting errors against others.

Jesus, for Christians, replaced Jewish law. For traditional Jews, the commandments (mitzvot) and Jewish law (halacha) are still binding. Jesus is not seen as the messiah. In the Jewish view, the messiah is a human being who will usher in an era of peace. We can tell the messiah by looking at the world and seeing if it is at peace. From the Jewish view, this clearly did not happen when Jesus was on Earth or anytime after his death.

Jews vary about what they think of Jesus as a man. Some respect him as an ethical teacher who accepted Jewish law, as someone who didn't even see himself as the messiah, who didn't want to start a new religion at all. Rather, Jesus is seen by these Jews as someone who challenged the religious authorities of his day for their practices. In this view, he meant to improve Judaism according to his own understanding not to break with it. Whatever the Jewish response is, one point is crucial. No one who is Jewish, no born Jew and no one who converts to Judaism, can believe in Jesus as the literal son of God or as the messiah. For the Jewish people, there is no God but God.

[mzmolly]

36. Jews believe were all Gods "children" in a sense.

So it's kind of a mish mash.

[Goldmund]

10. I think that Jesus is...

...a compilation of the Greatest Hits of Mid East Mythology from around 0 AD.

In that respect he may be similar to "al Zarqawi". :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

14. LOL. Best answer. n/t

[Zhade]

27. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of al-Goldstein.

If they're going to make up myths, I far prefer the Jesus-style to the al-Zarqawi-style.

[Stand and Fight]

17. Yes.

As are we all the Sons and Daughters of God, as are we all the Sons and Daughters "of man."

[Double T]

28. If there was a Jesus, he was mortal and a preacher man.........

........and probably did good things.

[maveric]

53. And was killed for political reasons. Pointing out the hypocrites.

[Bryn]

30. Do We Have a Hard Evidence

That there was a historical Jesus other than "The Bible Tells Me So!!"? Did the Romans make him up ... out of a simple, wise teacher who probably wasn't even a Jew for political reasons/gains and money/power/control over the mass?? He probably was a Greek or even an Italian, but made him into a Jew to make Jewish prophecy come true as a Messiah. Perhaps most of Jesus stories were fabricated (walking on water, changing water into wine, born of a virgin which has an old mythology origin like Isis/Horus..etc.) Sure Josephus, the Roman historican, mentioned Jesus, but it was rejected and believed that it was added (forgery) in Josephus' book by a Priest in France. What proof?? Truth??

[Zhade]

44. Not to my knowledge.

We have evidence of early Christians, but not the alleged guy himself.

It's really silly to me that the purported teachings of some character named Jesus are outweighed by most believers' need to authenticate someone who very well may never have walked the earth.

I thought the TEACHINGS were the important thing, not the need to insist that something unprovable is The One Truth.

[K-W]

63. No, the evidence is all circumstantial, but there is evidence.

and if someone made him up it was the people who claimed to be his deciples. We do know they existed and we do know that they were the ones spreading christianity.

[trotsky]

83. Actually, one thing we know

is that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by the men whose names they bear. Paul's letters are the earliest writings, and even those postdate Jesus' supposed death by about 20 years. The Gospels came even later, 30-70 years after the alleged resurrection.

Think of how drastically a story can change in this modern era in just 24 hours, then go back to a time when most of the population was illiterate and the only way of transmitting stories was through oral tradition.

Jesse James' widow was correcting embellished details about his life just a decade after he died, and that happened less than 150 years ago. Go back 2000 years and imagine how it would be.

[MasonJar]

31. The thing that I try to keep in mind is St. Paul's admonishment

that we see through a glass darkly. Noone can see into the mind of God, and I am tired of the religious right telling me that Jesus wants war and greed. They will never inherit the kingdom of heaven.

[Cleita]

32. I thought of writing a story.

Since the Bible claims Jesus was resurrected and that Mary kept her body after death as well, it seems that they could still be walking the earth.

I thought I would make Jesus a Jewish Rabbi, in the present, who calls himself Joshua Cohen and he lives with his mother Miriam Cohen in a Jewish neighborhood. Mary and Jesus keep kosher. I thought it would be fun to have a Passover meal where they invite some Christians they have befriended to join them.

I thought the conversation would be fun comparing the Passover meal with the last supper and Jesus explaining what really took place, almost saying he was there, but really leaving that part unsaid.

The conversation would lead to other commonly held beliefs about the New Testament with Jesus and Mary making corrections and explaining what really happened without admitting that they were there.

[Guaranteed]

58. "Jesus Was a Terrorist" would be an interesting title for a book,

if it isn't one already. It sounds pretty familiar.

He probably would be considered one today.

[Cleita]

75. He was considered something similar to a terrorist in his own time.

He was a revolutionary at any rate. He pricked at the entitlement of the established religious figures like the pharisees, which is why they wanted him out of the way. He was acquiring a large following and it was a threat to them. They enlisted the aid of their Roman overlords by claiming he wanted to set himself up as a king.

I don't want to bring up that the Jews were responsible for his crucifixion mantra, but it was a segment of the religious establishment that was responsible for making him into a criminal, guilty of treason, and therefore punishable by death.

Since the Jews didn't execute criminals by crucifixion, the fact that the Romans did execute him seems to point to the fact that the Romans were responsible in the end for his crucifixion not the Jews because they thought he was a revolutionary who would try to set himself up as king in an attempt to drive them from Palestine.IMO

[AntiCoup2K4]

93. It's not a book, but it is a Jello Biafra song

Jesus was a terrorist
Enemy of the state
That's what the Romans labeled him
So he was put to death

He died for his beliefs
What's changed today?

Today bible-thumping cannibals
Reap money from his name
Buy cable networks & power
With old ladies' checks

If Jesus saw Pat Robertson
What do you think he'd say?

Tax-free they re-write our laws
And sick 'em on you
Women don't control their bodies
TV preachers do

Censor everything from bathing suits
To science books
From the schoolroom to the bedroom
They want our thoughts - or else

They treat us like the Romans
Used to treat the Christians
Even some churchgoing folks are scared

Modern catacombs of fear
Built with money, power and threats
Rock'n'roll is labeled porn
Sell a record, you're under arrest

Instead of fighting AIDS
They try to stop us having sex
They brag that they won't quit
Til they take dominion over our lives

Is freedom of speech such a terrorist act
Is spiritual peace such a satanic threat
Believe what you want
But we'll fight to keep
Out heads from being cemented in your sand.

[orpupilofnature57]

102. No, he was an enemy of Cesar, and all tyrants, especially religious ones!!

[MrSlayer]

35. Of course not.

He was just a guy with a nice message.

[MadHound]

37. I think Jesus was a man,

I also think that he walked this Earth. However I don't believe that he was in anyway related to God, anymore than the rest of us mortals. However I do think that he was a devout radical, much in the mold of Ghandi. The miracles, the healing, exagerations and parlor tricks. Christ was known to have studied with the Essenes, a small Jewish sect that, among other things, specialized in magic and healing, thus a possible starting point for the mythical miracles.

But all in all, Jesus was a man, and in my opinion, divine. Political, sure, spiritual, certainly, but in no way was he divine.

[Guaranteed]

57. I don't know for sure, but I think he probably did exist, too.

No way in hell he had extraordinary powers normally considered to be godlike, though.

[mzmolly]

38. I chose option 2 under the edited version.

;)

[orpupilofnature57]

39. 'We were there" Jesus is part of the holy trinity, which has no separate..

part therefore, he is god, AS THE SON OF MAN. And to clear the record,EVEN HE SAID THAT ONLY HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN KNEW,. WHEN THE WORLD WOULD END. So mixing him in with the hokus-poke-us twits is misanthrope. OTHER

[leftofthedial]

40. no such creature to my knowledge

[ComerPerro]

42. Jesus was the Last Son of Krypton, with extraordinary powers

normally considered to be godlike

[Zhade]

45. Jesus! You will KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

</Superman>

[Guaranteed]

59. Yes, Son of Jarrell.

I believe in Superman.

[dave29]

43. Let me consult the magic 8 ball.

"Signs point to no".

[dweller]

46. no, Jesus was a human aware of the potential of all humans

Dennis Kucinich, on the other hand, is still God.

dp

[Book Lover]

50. If he existed at all, no

If the man lived for real, no. He was just a human like me.

[lonestarnot]

51. Yes, He was and is The Son of God!

[maveric]

54. Its that simple?

[lonestarnot]

86. Absolutely! my man!

[journalist3072]

66. Amen!! He most certainly is!

[H2O Man]

52. None of the above. n/t

[Guaranteed]

55. We've decided that "never existed" gets thrown in

with the "No's."

I can't edit, but "No" just means he wasn't the Son of God with extraordinary powers normally...yadda yadda.

[H2O Man]

60. There is no reason

to assume he did not exist. That is nonsense. There are numerous historical figures who are less well documented.

Jesus never refered to himself as the "Son of God." In the language that he spoke, it is very clear that he refered to himself as the "Son of Man." There are important distinctions.

The idea of being sons and daughters of God was common among the Jewish people at that time. It would simply have indicated he was Jewish. The idea of him calling himself the only "Son of God," as in part of a trinity, does not fit with what he intended.

"Son of Man" has a distinct meaning. It means that he viewed his mission as being mankind's representative to God. He was aware that he had the self-discipline that allowed him to accept that role.

That is why I had voted "none of the above." The choices you listed certainly allow for those who want to believe he didn't exist, and for those who want to believe he was part of their trinity. It did not allow for what I believe he was.

[Guaranteed]

64. Right, but that's what his followers call him.

And as he was being crucified people were taunting him for calling himself the "Son of God." They said that that was what he said. They may have been mistaken, though. Pilate himself just asked him if he was "King of the Jews," according to the NIV. In any case, I thought it was pretty common usage.

Son of Man doesn't quite seem to have the same ring to it.

I'm the son of a man. But, I don't think it means the same thing. I think that term causes confusion.

[H2O Man]

73. You might.

But that's because you speak English. And you are alive now. And you make an error that is pretty common.

It is true that the crowd taunted Jesus as being the "King of the Jews." That is certainly different than "Son of God."

It is unlikely that any of his disciples called him the Son of God. That, like the word "Christ," simply doesn't fit. "Son of Man" is found, for but one example, in Mark 14:21.

Much of the confusion about Jesus likely occures from the incorrect use of words.

[GCP]

56. There is no god. eom

[journalist3072]

67. Most certainly there is!!

[GCP]

68. We'll agree to disagree

But deciding there is no god gets rid of all that bending over backward to find some good and god's "plan" when horrible things happen to innocent people.

[Guaranteed]

71. You know, I actually don't find it all that hard to find good

in the world. I'm of the opinion that 99.99% of the world is really pretty good. There's just always so much that goes right for us (or, rather, works out for us) that we take it for granted. We just notice the bad stuff, particularly when we start getting really spoiled.

[dweller]

82. that's just perspective

aka: your pov.

here's the other 1%...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3736412

i believe H2O Man lays it out pretty well above.

dp

[journalist3072]

74. When bad things happen to good people...

Well, God never promised any of us a Rose Garden. He never said we would have a perfect life. What is so comforting about God is that he is right there with us through those hard times. He knows our thoughts, even before we do.

[GCP]

78. I can't believe in a god which allows such suffering to innocents

Most of the people on this earth live in poverty and misery, a lot of them are kept docile about this by believing that the next life will be better.
Humankind developed the idea of a god and an afterlife when we became self-aware and couldn't stand the thought that when life ends, that's it.
It's so much more comforting to think that there's a benevolent being out there which looks after and over us, and that when we die, we meet our family and friends in heaven.
It's a nice fairy story.

[kliljedahl]

61. Where is:

Jesus is just a myth & never existed?


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[journalist3072]

62. Yes, he absolutely is the Son of God!!

The book of Matthew teaches us that after Jesus was baptized, he heard a voice from heaven say "this is my beloved SON, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17)


Also, in Matthew 16: 13-18

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”


Praise God!

[Guaranteed]

65. Yeah, that too.

I don't believe the Bible to be a true story, for the most part. But, I was under the impression that Christians think of him as the Son of God.

[Johonny]

70. Hmm

I thought that there were two schools of thought on this dividing the church long ago. Most American Christians derive from the Son of God school. But it's not the only brand of Christian thought out there.

[Guaranteed]

79. Probably not. nt

[DuaneBidoux]

94. I do envy your easy faith, Matthew 16: 13-18 says...

but do you really know where that came from? Can you prove who wrote it? Never. You BELIEVE who wrote it. These are, and always will be, matters of faith. I suggest, if you do want to be challenged, to actually study biblical scholarship on where the early writings of the Bible came from. That will be a true test of your faith.

[Fire Walk With Me]

72. IIRC, Jesus said something to the effect of "You can all do these things"

in regard to miracles, or that you are all as I am, or some such.

Really interesting if so, and utterly overlooked.

[Swamp Rat]

76. Naw, he's my cuzin, esse, who lives in Phoenix.

Este vato duz a mean tuck-and-roll an' can fix your Harley in no tine, carnal. :D

[Minstrel Boy]

80. "Please avoid the flamewars"

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

[cureautismnow]

84. Someday you're going to go poof ...

...and then you'll have your proof, albeit YMMV. :-)

[screembloodymurder]

85. Yes and for all who doubt,

on Saturday there will be a sign in the heavens above Thomas, WV. By that sign shall you know that he is come again.

[applegrove]

87. I think he was a man, and a composite. But I don't know. I wasn't there.

[OnionPatch]

88. I voted yes

because I do believe he was the son of God. I also believe we are ALL children of God.

As for having extraordinary powers....he said in the scripture that we can all do what he has done and I believe we can. However, very few of us have been able to get to that level, so he was extraordinary.

[thecai]

96. True That

I had only read the original message but my earlier response followed yours. GOD confirms His Word and signs in two's and three's. "The works that I have done, you do also, and greater works shall you do because I go unto My Father."

Your post explained it very well, you have good understanding. :-)

[thecai]

89. Yes, And Believers Have The Same Authority

...Jesus has.

[ObaMania]

90. Couldn't answer.. no option for..

.. Son of God, but just a man.

[DuaneBidoux]

91. Wanted to vote "just a man..." But couldn't

But even if you don't believe he was actually the Son of God (which I don't any more than that we are all sons (and daughters) of God) I still couldn't quite say "just a man..."

For good or evil, right or wrong, Jesus the philosopher is still one of the most influential figures in the history of the human race, or at least the myth of Jesus is one of the most influential myths of all time.

I do not believe he literally performed miracles--but he certainly has had a miraculous impact.

[quaker bill]

92. Both more or less

Fully human and well connected to the divine.

[raysr]

95. No, you must be

thinkin' 'bout *.

[greatbubba]

97. I do know this God, Jesus, holy spirit are inside of you. RELIGION is a

LIE, it's been a lie since the beggining.

[REP]

98. "ON THE PROSPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY" - George Bernard Shaw, 1912

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/ndrcp10.txt

WAS JESUS A MARTYR?

It is important therefore that we should clear our minds of the
notion that Jesus died, as some are in the habit of declaring,
for his social and political opinions. There have been many
martyrs to those opinions; but he was not one of them, nor, as
his words show, did he see any more sense in martyrdom than
Galileo did. He was executed by the Jews for the blasphemy of
claiming to be a God; and Pilate, to whom this was a mere piece
of superstitious nonsense, let them execute him as the cheapest
way of keeping them quiet, on the formal plea that he had
committed treason against Rome by saying that he was the King of
the Jews. He was not falsely accused, nor denied full
opportunities of defending himself. The proceedings were quite
straightforward and regular; and Pilate, to whom the appeal lay,
favored him and despised his judges, and was evidently willing
enough to be conciliated. But instead of denying the charge,
Jesus repeated the offence. He knew what he was doing: he had
alienated numbers of his own disciples and been stoned in the
streets for doing it before. He was not lying: he believed
literally what he said. The horror of the High Priest was
perfectly natural: he was a Primate confronted with a heterodox
street preacher uttering what seemed to him an appalling and
impudent blasphemy. The fact that the blasphemy was to Jesus a
simple statement of fact, and that it has since been accepted as
such by all western nations, does not invalidate the proceedings,
nor give us the right to regard Annas and Caiaphas as worse men
than the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Head Master of Eton. If
Jesus had been indicted in a modern court, he would have been
examined by two doctors; found to be obsessed by a delusion;
declared incapable of pleading; and sent to an asylum: that is
the whole difference. But please note that when a man is charged
before a modern tribunal (to take a case that happened the other
day) of having asserted and maintained that he was an officer
returned from the front to receive the Victoria Cross at the
hands of the King, although he was in fact a mechanic, nobody
thinks of treating him as afflicted with a delusion. He is
punished for false pretences, because his assertion is credible
and therefore misleading. Just so, the claim to divinity made by
Jesus was to the High Priest, who looked forward to the coming of
a Messiah, one that might conceivably have been true, and might
therefore have misled the people in a very dangerous way. That
was why he treated Jesus as an imposter and a blasphemer where we
should have treated him as a madman.

(Read the whole thing for yourself at the above link)

Note: this work is in the public domain

[DoNotRefill]

99. Jesus is my lawn guy.

George got to be unreliable, and I had to fire him.

[darkism]

100. Well, he's MY homeboy.

Beat THAT! :silly:

[dutchdemocrat]

101. Did a historical Jesus even exist?

There is no historical proof.

Did a historical Jesus exist?

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 got written 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 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 provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person. Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

<snip>

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[bklyncowgirl]

103. I don't know and you don't know either.

I was raised Catholic. I've since moved away from organized religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular while trying to retain the best of the moral teachings of Christianity.

If you believe that Jesus was the son of God then that is a matter of faith and faith defies reason and logic. A person believes in his or her religion but he cannot "Know" the unknowable.

[orpupilofnature57]

104. KICK!!! Know = Omnipotent

[mopaul]

105. i can't believe we're still talking about it, 2,000 years later