• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus actually exist as a historical figure?

A

Awoon

Well-Known Member
JoStories said:
Horse pucky, particularly to any astrology worth his or her weight. Heaven is mythological and has NO basis in reality. Space can be seen and has been, albeit to a VERY limited degree, explored. Can you possibly say the same for your 'heaven'?
Click to expand...

I see heaven everywhere. Too bad you cant. Ask Jesus for help.
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Awoon said:
Heaven is everywhere. Universe is everywhere. Same thing just different words.
Click to expand...
Heaven was originally definition for just the "sky", only something that were perceived by the ancients, as the dome or vault. Heaven was only something that they could see without the aid of the telescope.

There were no perception by the ancients that heaven = universe. They knew nothing of galaxies or universe.

The universe has only common usage of the last fewer centuries, where the telescopes became increasingly more powerful than the last, giving us more view of increasingly more distant stars and galaxies.

Heaven = universe is only recent concept of modern astronomy.

the people writing bible, Qur'an and other scriptures has always assume the earth and heaven tied together, but when in fact, the Earth is merely tiniest of speck in the universe, and played no role outside of the solar system.
 
Last edited:
A

Awoon

Well-Known Member
gnostic said:
Heaven was originally definition for just the "sky", only something that were perceived by the ancients, as the dome or vault. Heaven was only something that they could see without the aid of the telescope.

There were no perception by the ancients that heaven = universe. They knew nothing of galaxies or universe.

The universe has only common usage of the last fewer centuries, where the telescopes became increasingly more powerful than the last, giving us more view of increasingly more distant stars and galaxies.

Heaven = universe is only recent concept of modern astronomy.

the people writing bible, Qur'an and other scriptures has always assume the earth and heaven tied together, but when in fact, the Earth is merely tiniest of speck in the universe, and played no role outside of the solar system.
Click to expand...

You forget Jesus was God and he called Heaven everywhere. Our Beloved who is Everywhere.
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Awoon said:
You forget Jesus was God and he called Heaven everywhere. Our Beloved who is Everywhere.
Click to expand...
That would be your personal opinion and belief, and nothing more than that. And Jesus is your god, which is not really relevant of those who are not Christians.

And it has nothing to do with reality or the original concept and context of heaven.

My problem is not your personal belief, but you trying to mix modern concept/context of the universe with that of ancient belief of heaven of limited astronomy. They are not related.
 
A

Awoon

Well-Known Member
gnostic said:
That would be your personal opinion and belief, and nothing more than that. And Jesus is your god, which is not really relevant of those who are not Christians.

And it has nothing to do with reality or the original concept and context of heaven.

My problem is not your personal belief, but you trying to mix modern concept/context of the universe with that of ancient belief of heaven of limited astronomy. They are not related.
Click to expand...

Aramaic language....Heaven is Everywhere.
Jesus is my God make sure you use upper case.
 
Last edited:
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
Anyone from any religion is welcome to join in on the discussion, but I have a few rules that everyone must follow. If you do not want to adhere to these rules, please be respectful and refrain from commenting. Thanks so much for your input and respect to the nature of this discussion:

1. Do not refer to one part of the Bible as proof for any validity of any other part of the Bible. We are trying to be objective here.

2. Do not make claims stating that "Biblical Scholars agree ..." This is nothing but a cop-out, and I would like to discuss the actual evidence that might lead those Scholars to agree in the first place.

3. No claims without sufficient evidence to back them up. You cannot just say things like "everyone knows".

4. Finally, there is absolutely NO CLAIMING THAT ANY OPINION SHARED MAKES THE HOLDER OF THAT PERSON ANY LESS OF A DECENT PERSON. Let's be adults and keep this one clean.

If you don't like the rules, please avoid the thread. Thanks so much. I look forward to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Jesus is a religious figure. So to say that the bible, /ie religious text, cannot be used for argumentation in backing up the religious beliefs, is silly, and off topic.

You can't separate the 'religious Jesus' from the 'historical Jesus'. if you are intent on that, then you have to compromise with allowance of Biblical text...otherwise, you are essentially saying nothing, because you cannot prove that He didn't exist, /historically.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
disciple said:
Jesus is a religious figure. So to say that the bible, /ie religious text, cannot be used for argumentation in backing up the religious beliefs, is silly, and off topic.

You can't separate the 'religious Jesus' from the 'historical Jesus'. if you are intent on that, then you have to compromise with allowance of Biblical text...otherwise, you are essentially saying nothing, because you cannot prove that He didn't exist, /historically.
Click to expand...
You don't need to prove his absence - his existence is not proven.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
You don't need to prove his absence - his existence is not proven.
Click to expand...

Proving the existence of a ''historical Jesus' outside of the religious text is not my concern...why would it be? That is why I stated that He is a religious figure, first and foremost. The entire premise of asking for ''proof'' of His existence is a strawman.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
disciple said:
Proving the existence of a ''historical Jesus' outside of the religious text is not my concern...why would it be? That is why I stated that He is a religious figure, first and foremost. The entire premise of asking for ''proof'' of His existence is a strawman.
Click to expand...
Then why ask for disproof?
 
`mud

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
The lack of past presence, doesn't prove the past absence.
And the past absence doesn't prove the past presence !
It's all circular, isn't it ?
~
'mud
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
JoStories said:
I have no idea why you can't see it but it is there. Not sure what the original post with the link is but I quoted the post and it showed up for me.
Click to expand...
It's not there so, rather than more silly evasions why not simply tell us to what specific [Price] theory are you referring?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top