Haha so funny.

ok again can any one explain the origin of humans???

So do you think Jesus was a liar?

I'm not even sure whether Jesus ever existed. The historical evidence for his existance is pretty much non-existant. He features prominently in the gospels, but since they were written for religious reasons, they cannot be considered valid historical evidence. The only other textual document which mentions Jesus is not even written by a contemporary of his, but rather a certain Flavius Josephus who wrote only one passage on the Christ. To boot, this passage is widely considered to be either a forgery or atleast have been heavily edited by a later hand.

Many scholars find it odd that a man of such importance should be entirely missing from historic texts and records, as lesser figures are not, unless of course Jesus didn't exist, or was insignificant.

The existence of Jesus is not disputed. And Josephus is not the only non-Biblical account of Jesus. Tacitus refers to him and his followers as well. You should know that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus, among others


And of courses Jesus was insiginificant during his lifetime. How did you ever think otherwise? a crazy Jew from an insignificant and backwards region of the Roman Empire among a group of people considered stupid and primitive, do you think the Romans would have given him much thought?

Tacitus is considered the most reliable scholar of his time. He had access to Roman archives, and his only mistakes arose from occasional reliance on secondary sources. In this case he could have been using either Christian sources or Roman archives. It is argued that if he had been using Roman archives, he should have identified Pontius Pilate as a "prefect" rather than a "procurator," but that is disputable. The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than "Christus." Although Tacitus was Roman rather than Jewish and might have believed that was part of the name, it is extremely unlikely he would have selected it alone from the archives. In addition, Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no Roman documents related to a historical Jesus.

[...]

However, the text merely mentions that Christians existed, which is not generally in doubt, and that they had founding in someone called "Christ" executed by Pilate, a statement that could easily have come merely from a conversation with a Christian, rather than a statement of fact.

So do you think Jesus was a liar?

Why do you ask that? Who called Jesus a liar?

Well he can only be 3 things: A Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Nobody can think he was just a great prophet. Then Jesus would have been a liar.

Not true, he could be considered a great thinker and history's first human rights advocate.


Whatever he was, we can safely regard him now as the single most influential individual in human history.

Whatever he was, we can safely regard him now as the single most influential individual in human history.

Well he can only be 3 things: A Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Nobody can think he was just a great prophet. Then Jesus would have been a liar.

What if there is no god, no afterlife, or anything such as?

That would mean we could have all just have done what we wanted. Murder, Robbery, Singing, Abuse, etc. If there in nothing, than none of this would matter in any way whatsoever at the end of the line.

Scary to me. Oh well. I choose to believe in life after death. I would hate to think that living life was all there was. I mean that is quite a boring theory for most. I think of all the time I have wasted standing in lines. You mean I could have just pushed those out people out of the way? I wish I knew that two days ago.

Whoever is right, I just hope I win in whatever way that is. That's all I care about. Either way is not too bad. Nothing? Wont know the different anyways. Something? Well, it's something to look forward too. Hopefully they kept the tv archives from the 70's/80's. So much I missed and I would have the time to view.

actually ... sorceror's stone doesn't. The author of the book acknowledges that the characters in the book are fictitious. same goes for night before christmas.
same can not be said for the other 3 books.

So do you think Jesus was a liar?

Well he can only be 3 things: A Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Nobody can think he was just a great prophet. Then Jesus would have been a liar.

But then he was a hypocrit as he would have lied about being God in the flesh.

That old trilemma is fallacious. Nice try though.

Did he claim that or did others claim that about him?

But then he was a hypocrit as he would have lied about being God in the flesh.

And just because the writers of the other books do not think their characters are ficticious doesn't mean they aren't.

Oh no, not at all. In order for someone to be a liar, (s)he must know that what (s)he is saying is not true. There is no evidence to suggest that Jesus knew that he was not the Son of God, or that the ideas he espoused were wrong. According to all of the accounts we have of him and his life, he died for his beliefs. It is extremely difficult to believe that someone would die for something they did not believe in.

Saying that Jesus is a liar is like saying that Plato is a liar for believing in his Theory of Forms, or that Dante is an idiot for believing in an afterlife. Being proven wrong, if they are wrong, does not make any of them liars.

true .. but what i'm trying to point out is that you cannot group the 2 together. while we know for a fact that the entire world created in harry potter, the lives and experiences are completely ficticious, no amount of investigation is actually required to prove it so. The other books on the other hand, are a different matter altogether. Hence the grouping is compeltely invalid.