Here are 9 ‘facts’ you know for sure about Jesus that are probably wrong

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 8:51 am

esus has been described as the best known figure in history, and also the least known. If you mentioned the name “Jesus” and someone asked Jesus who?, you might blink. Or laugh. Even people who don’t think Jesus was God, mostly believe they know a fair bit about him. You might be surprised that some of your most basic assumptions about Jesus are probably wrong. We have no record of anything that was written about Jesus by eyewitnesses or other contemporaries during the time he would have lived or for decades thereafter, and as best scientists can tell, all physical relics of his life are later fakes. Nonetheless, based on archeological digs and artifacts, ancient texts and art, linguistic patterns, and even forensic science, we know a good deal about the time and culture in which the New Testament is set. This evidence points to some startling conclusions about who Jesus likely was—and wasn’t.

Cropped hair, not long. Jewish men at the time of Christ did not typically wear their hair long. A Roman triumphal arch of the time period depicts Jewish slaves with short hair. In the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he addresses male hair length. “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14 NRSV). During the 1960’s conservative Christians quoted this verse to express their disgust against the hippy movement and to label it as anti-Christian.
Married, not single. In 2012, when an ancient papyrus scrap came to light referring to the wife of Jesus (most likely a forgery), some Catholics and Evangelicals were scandalized at the very thought. But unlike the Catholic Church, Jews have no tradition of celibacy among religious leaders. Ancient writers documented exceptions like the Apostle Paul or the Essene sect precisely because they violated the norm. In the Gospels, Jesus is called rabbi; and all great rabbis that we know of were married. A rabbi being celibate would have been so unusual that some modern writers have argued that Jesus must have been gay. But a number of ancient texts, including the canonical New Testament, point to a special relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. For example, the non-canonical Gospel of Phillip says, “[Jesus] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her [word missing].”
Hung on a pole, not necessarily a cross. For centuries scholars have known that the Greek New Testament word “stauros,” which gets translated into English as cross, can refer to a device of several shapes, commonly a single upright pole, “torture stake” or even tree. The Romans did not have a standard way of crucifying prisoners, and Josephus tells us that during the siege of Jerusalem soldiers nailed or tied their victims in a variety of positions. Early Christians may have centered in on the vertical pole with a crossbeam because it echoed the Egyptian ankh, a symbol of life, or simply because it was more artistically and symbolically distinctive than the alternatives. Imagine millions of people wearing a golden pole on a chain around their necks.
Short, not tall. The typical Jewish man at the time of the Roman Empire was just over five feet tall, which makes this a best guess for the height of Jesus. That he is typically depicted taller likely derives from the mental challenge people have in distinguishing physical stature from other kinds of stature. Great men are called “big men” and “larger than life.” In ancient times they often were assigned divine parentage and miraculous births, and the idea that Jesus was uniquely divine has created a strong pull over time to depict him as taller than is likely. A good illustration of this is the Shroud of Turin, which is just one of many such Jesus-shrouds that circulated during medieval times and which bears the (now reproduced) image of a man closer to six feet in height.
Born in a house, not the stable of an inn. The miraculous birth story of Jesus is a late, maybe 2nd century addition to the gospels, and consequently it contains many fascinating mythic elements and peculiarities. But the idea that Jesus was born in a stable got added to the Christmas story even later. In the original narrative, Joseph and Mary probably would have stayed with relatives, and the phrase “no room for them in the inn (gr: kataluma)” is better translated “no room for them in the upper room.” Later storytellers did not understand that people of the time might bring animals into their ground floor, as in Swiss housebarns, and they assumed that the presence of a manger implied a stable.
Named Joshua, not Jesus. The name Joshua (in Hebrew Y’hoshuʿa meaning “deliverance” or “salvation”), was common among Jews in the Ancient Near East as it is today. Joshua and Jesus are the same name, but are translated differently in our modern Bible to distinguish Jesus from the Joshua of the Old Testament, who leads the Hebrew people to the Promised Land. In actuality, though, the relationship between the two figures is fascinating and important. Some scholars believe that the New Testament gospels are mostly updated retellings of the more ancient Joshua story, remixed with episodes from stories of Elisha and Elijah and Moses. A modern parallel can be found in the way that Hollywood writers have reworked Shakespearean tropes and plot elements into dozens of modern movies (though for a very different purpose).
Number of apostles (12) from astrology, not history. Whether Jesus had 12 disciples who ranked above his other devotees is an open question, as their names vary from list to list. Since the Gospels echo the story of Joshua, the “12” apostles most immediately mirror the 12 tribes of Israel. But the number 12 was considered auspicious by many ancient people, including the Israelites, and the 189 repetitions of the number 12 in the Bible ultimately may derive from the same pre-historical roots as the 12 signs of the zodiac and 12 months of the year. Astrotheology or star worship preceded the Hebrew religion, and shaped both the Bible and Western religions more broadly. One might point to the 12 Olympian gods or 12 sons of Odin, or the 12 days of Christmas or 12 “legitimate” successors to the prophet Mohammed.
Prophecies recalled, not foretold. Even people who aren’t too sure about the divinity of Jesus sometimes think that the way he fulfilled prophecies was a bit spooky, like the writings of Nostradamus. In reality, Scooby Doo could solve this one in a single episode with four pieces of information: First, Old Testament prophecies were well known to 1st century Jews, and a messianic figure who wanted to fulfill some of these prophecies could simply do so. For example, in the book of Matthew, Jesus seeks a donkey to ride into Jerusalem “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet” (Matthew 21:4). Second, “gospels” are a genre of devotional literature rather than objective histories, which means that the authors had every reason to shape their stories around earlier predictions. Third, scholars now believe that some Bible texts once thought to be prophecies (for example in the Book of Revelation) actually relate to events that were past or current at the time of writing. Finally, a psychological phenomenon known as the “Barnum Effect” ensures that those who want to believe in prophecies (or astrology, for that matter) will find amazing coincidences if they look hard enough.
Some Jesus quotes not from Jesus, others uncertain. Lists of favorite Jesus sayings abound online. Some of the most popular are the Beatitudes (Blessed are the meek, etc.) or the story of the woman caught in adultery (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone) or the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, which, we are told, sums up the Law and the Prophets.) Which words actually from Jesus? This question has been debated fiercely by everyone from 3^rd century Catholic Councils to the 20^th Century Jesus Seminar. Even Thomas Jefferson weighed in, but much remains unclear. The New Testament Gospels were written long after Jesus would have died, and no technology existed with which to record his teachings in real time, unless a he wrote them down himself, which he didn’t. We can be confident that at least some of the wise and timeless words and catchy proverbs attributed to Jesus are actually from earlier or later thinkers. For example, the Golden Rule was articulated before the time of Christ by the Rabbi Hillel the Elder, who similarly said it was the “whole Torah.” By contrast, the much loved story of the woman caught in adultery doesn’t appear in manuscripts until the 4^th century. Attributing words (or whole texts) to a famous person was common in the Ancient Near East, because it gave those words extra weight. Small wonder, then, that so many genuinely valuable insights ended up, in one way or another, paired with the name of Jesus.

The person of Jesus, if indeed there was a single historical rabbi at the root of our traditions, is shrouded in the fog of history leaving us only with a set of hunches and traditions that far too often get treated as knowledge. The “facts” I have listed here are largely trivial; it doesn’t really matter whether Jesus was tall or short, or how he cut his hair. But it does matter, tremendously, that “facts” people claim to know about how Jesus saw himself, and God and humanity are equally tenuous. In the words of Mark Twain: It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. The teachings attributed to Jesus mix enduring spiritual and moral insights with irrelevancies and Judaica and bits of Iron Age culture, some of which are truly awful. That leaves each of us, from the privileged vantage of the 21^st century, with both a right and a responsibility to consider the evidence and make our own best guesses about what is real and how we should then live. A good starting place might be a little more recognition that we don’t know nearly as much as we’d like to think, and a lot of what we know for sure is probably wrong.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/here-are-9-facts-you-know-for-sure-about-jesus-that-are-probably-wrong/

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:34 am

Darker skin not white European

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 10:17 am

married...lol...I think that is an latter day saint invention, they think he married twice, well at least twice but they have to it sorts it with their beliefs...

short hair wow that changes everything...you'll be telling me he wasn't white and blue eyed next..lol

the idea of a stake rather than a cross has been thrown around for ever, it's a particular like of the jw's, some think it is true because it says cursed is he who is hanged on a cross and they believe that Jesus could not be cursed..

interesting about the 12, why would you give astronomy authority over the bible, God created the stars and the heavens any way..

may not be the sayings of Jesus, well that sounds pretty concrete.

prophercies retold....come on...

I give up, it's just opinion of the person who wrote the source...

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:55 pm

Yep prophecies retold, it was written after the events.
The points go way over your head as usual HF because this is showing how what is claimed in the bible does not tally up with the known history for the time of the people living then.

Hi Korben

Good point to add

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:34 pm

another anti-Christian thread wow how original

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:41 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Yep prophecies retold, it was written after the events.
The points go way over your head as usual HF because this is showing how what is claimed in the bible does not tally up with the known history for the time of the people living then.

Hi Korben

Good point to add

lol...it is just opinion, the opinion of the one you copied and pasted and the opinion of those who disagree... you have no concrete evidence to prove what you copy and pasted is valid....

but hey don't let lack of facts get in the way...

what did fox news have to say on the topic............. Smile

Here are 9 ‘facts’ you know for sure about Jesus that are probably wrong Z

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:08 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Yep prophecies retold, it was written after the events.
The points go way over your head as usual HF because this is showing how what is claimed in the bible does not tally up with the known history for the time of the people living then.

Hi Korben

Good point to add

lol...it is just opinion, the opinion of the one you copied and pasted and the opinion of those who disagree... you have no concrete evidence to prove what you copy and pasted is valid....

but hey don't let lack of facts get in the way...

what did fox news have to say on the topic.............

Here are 9 ‘facts’ you know for sure about Jesus that are probably wrong Index15

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:15 pm

no proof just copy and paste bullshit

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:19 pm

just like you then

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:20 pm

Vicar of Dibley wrote:no proof just copy and paste bullshit

that's all the christianophobes ever have....

Here are 9 ‘facts’ you know for sure about Jesus that are probably wrong Z

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:27 pm

How on earth is the thread anti-Christian?
Its going off historical data from the time Jesus is supposed to have lived.
Like for example it would certainly have been very out of place for Jesus not to have been married even more so if claimed to be directly descended from David. It would have been inconceivable for the time not to carry on the line.
That is called asking critical questions about the story of Jesus found in the bible. Its not being anti-Christians as its been analyzed from a historical aspect.
If serious questions arise from a historical aspect, then that is something for the Christian believer themselves to understand ad find answers.

by eddie Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:33 pm

It's just hearsay or speculation
None of us know anything for sure

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:34 pm

it is going off no data at all just a premise that the bible in incorrect....

Here are 9 ‘facts’ you know for sure about Jesus that are probably wrong Z

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:35 pm

Cuchulain wrote:How on earth is the thread anti-Christian?
Its going off historical data from the time Jesus is supposed to have lived.
Like for example it would certainly have been very out of place for Jesus not to have been married even more so if claimed to be directly descended from David. It would have been inconceivable for the time not to carry on the line.
That is called asking critical questions about the story of Jesus found in the bible. Its not being anti-Christians as its been analyzed from a historical aspect.
If serious questions arise from a historical aspect, then that is something for the Christian believer themselves to understand ad find answers.

I wonder now , is it because you're blaspheming about Jesus not being pure and blaspheming he didn't die on a cross . Not hard to fathom out is it lol

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:35 pm

eddie wrote:It's just hearsay or speculation
None of us know anything for sure

exactly

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:36 pm

eddie wrote:It's just hearsay or speculation
None of us know anything for sure

Its called history, asking questions on so called historical characters.
You do not have to be religious to be historically interested in people found in the bible

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm

eddie wrote:It's just hearsay or speculation
None of us know anything for sure

Considering the whole bible is hearsay, except for the odd part that corroborates a historical character and yet you believe in that hearsay.
Funny that.

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:40 pm

Vicar of Dibley wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:How on earth is the thread anti-Christian?
Its going off historical data from the time Jesus is supposed to have lived.
Like for example it would certainly have been very out of place for Jesus not to have been married even more so if claimed to be directly descended from David. It would have been inconceivable for the time not to carry on the line.
That is called asking critical questions about the story of Jesus found in the bible. Its not being anti-Christians as its been analyzed from a historical aspect.
If serious questions arise from a historical aspect, then that is something for the Christian believer themselves to understand ad find answers.

I wonder now , is it because you're blaspheming about Jesus not being pure and blaspheming he didn't die on a cross . Not hard to fathom out is it lol

Blaspheming?
This is not the Middle Ages where such critical thinking had people burned at the stake.
I am atheist and to me Jesus was a man, a good teacher but a man.
So you are talking gobbledygook.
The only reason you kick up such a fuss is you are afraid you might be wrong, otherwise your outrage makes no sense if you truly believe

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:40 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:It's just hearsay or speculation
None of us know anything for sure
Considering the whole bible is hearsay, except for the odd part that corroborates a historical character and yet you believe in that hearsay.
Funny that.

So it is just a poor disguise of another thread aimed at attacking the Christian faith.... Smile

VOD called it straight from the off..... Smile

by eddie Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:42 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:It's just hearsay or speculation
None of us know anything for sure

Its called history, asking questions on so called historical characters.
You do not have to be religious to be historically interested in people found in the bible

But it's just speculation didge

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:44 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:
Considering the whole bible is hearsay, except for the odd part that corroborates a historical character and yet you believe in that hearsay.
Funny that.

So it is just a poor disguise of another thread aimed at attacking the Christian faith....

VOD called it straight from the off.....

No again its looking at historical characters again.
You are just afraid you might learn something that places doubt in your faith.
If that is the case, you already have doubt.
Hence to claim it is attacking is illogical if you fully believe in your faith.
Victim card alert.

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:45 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Its called history, asking questions on so called historical characters.
You do not have to be religious to be historically interested in people found in the bible

But it's just speculation didge

So is your bible and yet you believe in it Dibs

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:48 pm

so you admit what you posted is just hearsay didge ?

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:49 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
eddie wrote:

But it's just speculation didge

So is your bible and yet you believe in it Dibs

are you trying to say eddie is dibs...lol

i must be Muslim I have two wives..hey that's bad news..... Shocked

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:49 pm

Vicar of Dibley wrote:so you admit what you posted is just hearsay didge ?

Yes its questions asked based off factual things we know of the times Dibs.
So in my case not hearsay, as I am backing them up with factual evidence.
The same cannot be said for the bible

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:50 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

So is your bible and yet you believe in it Dibs

are you trying to say eddie is dibs...lol

i must be Muslim I have two wives..hey that's bad news.....

Seriously, if you are going to be an idiot, then crawl away.
If you want that mentality, I am sure Dibs can drop you off at a nursery

Enjoy

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:52 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Vicar of Dibley wrote:so you admit what you posted is just hearsay didge ?

Yes its questions asked based off factual things we know of the times Dibs.
So in my case not hearsay, as I am backing them up with factual evidence.
The same cannot be said for the bible

where is the wedding picture of Jesus marrying two wives , post it please and it has to be the original .

In your own time Razz

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:53 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

are you trying to say eddie is dibs...lol

i must be Muslim I have two wives..hey that's bad news.....

Seriously, if you are going to be an idiot, then crawl away.
If you want that mentality, I am sure Dibs can drop you off at a nursery

Enjoy

sense of humour didge it helps make life happier Wink

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:53 pm

Vicar of Dibley wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Yes its questions asked based off factual things we know of the times Dibs.
So in my case not hearsay, as I am backing them up with factual evidence.
The same cannot be said for the bible

where is the wedding picture of Jesus marrying two wives , post it please and it has to be the original .

In your own time

Where is the picture that Jesus existed?
Or one of Mary?
How about the Apostles Dibs?

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:54 pm

Vicar of Dibley wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Seriously, if you are going to be an idiot, then crawl away.
If you want that mentality, I am sure Dibs can drop you off at a nursery

Enjoy

sense of humour didge it helps make life happier

No, he is an idiot full stop not engaging in debate, he is going back on ignore.

by eddie Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:54 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

So is your bible and yet you believe in it Dibs

are you trying to say eddie is dibs...lol

i must be Muslim I have two wives..hey that's bad news.....

Seriously, if you are going to be an idiot, then crawl away.
If you want that mentality, I am sure Dibs can drop you off at a nursery

Enjoy

He means you quoted and replied to me and called me Dibs.

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:55 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Vicar of Dibley wrote:

where is the wedding picture of Jesus marrying two wives , post it please and it has to be the original .

In your own time

Where is the picture that Jesus existed?
Or one of Mary?
How about the Apostles Dibs?

It wasn't me that said i had the facts you did so post the wedding portrait the original one please , in your own time Laughing

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:55 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Seriously, if you are going to be an idiot, then crawl away.
If you want that mentality, I am sure Dibs can drop you off at a nursery

Enjoy

He means you quoted and replied to me and called me Dibs.

Well you could be the same person lol

No worries my mistake.

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:56 pm

eddie wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Seriously, if you are going to be an idiot, then crawl away.
If you want that mentality, I am sure Dibs can drop you off at a nursery

Enjoy

He means you quoted and replied to me and called me Dibs.

i'm pleased you noticed edds, bless him he seems to have lost it again...

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:57 pm

Vicar of Dibley wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Where is the picture that Jesus existed?
Or one of Mary?
How about the Apostles Dibs?

It wasn't me that said i had the facts you did so post the wedding portrait the original one please , in your own time

We do have evidence from the time how people lived Dibs.

Laughing

There is also such a thing as DNA, archeology etc.

Did you not know this?

We also have corroborating sources non-Jewish to how the Jews lived

That is called hard facts Dibs.

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:02 pm

I think he has forgotten we believe on faith but have since had proof of our own during our individual walks, that we sometimes share as testimonies... Smile

Can you prove God does not exist??

about 99% of people who accept evolution do so on faith so what is so different???

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:04 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I think he has forgotten we believe on faith but have since had proof of our own during our individual walks, that we sometimes share as testimonies...

Can you prove God does not exist??

about 99% of people who accept evolution do so on faith so what is so different???

Ha Ha ha, thank you for that.
So you go on faith and I go on evidence.
Says it all really, and that by only going by faith you are too afraid to look at historical facts.
I am not deflecting this debate about the existence of God or evolution.
Nice try but this debate is staying on topic no matter how poorly you try

Thanks

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:04 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Vicar of Dibley wrote:

It wasn't me that said i had the facts you did so post the wedding portrait the original one please , in your own time

We do have evidence from the time how people lived Dibs.

There is also such a thing as DNA, archeology etc.

Did you not know this?

We also have corroborating sources non-Jewish to how the Jews lived

That is called hard facts Dibs.

you have DNA from Jesus, well it proves he exists...

corroborating stories, so what someone else says you chose to believe....

they are not hard facts just what you chose to believe because of your bias... Smile

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:05 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Vicar of Dibley wrote:

It wasn't me that said i had the facts you did so post the wedding portrait the original one please , in your own time

We do have evidence from the time how people lived Dibs.

There is also such a thing as DNA, archeology etc.

Did you not know this?

We also have corroborating sources non-Jewish to how the Jews lived

That is called hard facts Dibs.

what you posted isn't facts its just someones opinion . Again there must some proof you can post , you know someone who painted a portrait of Jesus wedding/s

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:06 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I think he has forgotten we believe on faith but have since had proof of our own during our individual walks, that we sometimes share as testimonies...

Can you prove God does not exist??

about 99% of people who accept evolution do so on faith so what is so different???

Ha Ha ha, thank you for that.
So you go on faith and I go on evidence.
Says it all really, and that by only going by faith you are too afraid to look at historical facts.
I am not deflecting this debate about the existence of God or evolution.
Nice try but this debate is staying on topic no matter how poorly you try

Thanks

so what evidence have you personally got for evolution, how many fossils do you own, how much equipment to test them...

lol you accept your religion of evolution on faith..... Smile

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:07 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

We do have evidence from the time how people lived Dibs.

There is also such a thing as DNA, archeology etc.

Did you not know this?

We also have corroborating sources non-Jewish to how the Jews lived

That is called hard facts Dibs.

you have DNA from Jesus, well it proves he exists...

corroborating stories, so what someone else says you chose to believe....

they are not hard facts just what you chose to believe because of your bias...

DNA of Jesus?

Here are 9 ‘facts’ you know for sure about Jesus that are probably wrong 3489511464

Corroborating stories from different sources make them ore credible.
Not only that we have archeological evidence, DNA of the people who lived back then.
All can be added up to paint a very accurate picture for the time.

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:08 pm

Vicar of Dibley wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

We do have evidence from the time how people lived Dibs.

There is also such a thing as DNA, archeology etc.

Did you not know this?

We also have corroborating sources non-Jewish to how the Jews lived

That is called hard facts Dibs.

what you posted isn't facts its just someones opinion . Again there must some proof you can post , you know someone who painted a portrait of Jesus wedding/s

of course it is someone opinion, it's like when some try to get information from the painting of the last supper, it's a joke......

Here are 9 ‘facts’ you know for sure about Jesus that are probably wrong Z

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:08 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Ha Ha ha, thank you for that.
So you go on faith and I go on evidence.
Says it all really, and that by only going by faith you are too afraid to look at historical facts.
I am not deflecting this debate about the existence of God or evolution.
Nice try but this debate is staying on topic no matter how poorly you try

Thanks

so what evidence have you personally got for evolution, how many fossils do you own, how much equipment to test them...

lol you accept your religion of evolution on faith.....

Off topic
Which there is plenty of debates on evolution.
Try again and stay on topic or I will report you and have your posts removed to the relevant section.

Simple stay on topic boy

Laughing

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:09 pm

Vicar of Dibley wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

We do have evidence from the time how people lived Dibs.

There is also such a thing as DNA, archeology etc.

Did you not know this?

We also have corroborating sources non-Jewish to how the Jews lived

That is called hard facts Dibs.

what you posted isn't facts its just someones opinion . Again there must some proof you can post , you know someone who painted a portrait of Jesus wedding/s

The above points goes off what historical knowledge we have for the time.
It goes off some very good sound evidence Dibs, which would raise questions about Jesus and rightly so.

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:10 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

you have DNA from Jesus, well it proves he exists...

corroborating stories, so what someone else says you chose to believe....

they are not hard facts just what you chose to believe because of your bias...

DNA of Jesus?

Corroborating stories from different sources make them ore credible.
Not only that we have archeological evidence, DNA of the people who lived back then.
All can be added up to paint a very accurate picture for the time.

ore credible, have they tested rocks too......

what archaeological evidence, notice i can spell it...lol

what DNA of the people and what does that prove of Jesus.....

can it well paint the picture because at the moment you have nothing of any substance....

Here are 9 ‘facts’ you know for sure about Jesus that are probably wrong Z

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:12 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

so what evidence have you personally got for evolution, how many fossils do you own, how much equipment to test them...

lol you accept your religion of evolution on faith.....

Off topic
Which there is plenty of debates on evolution.
Try again and stay on topic or I will report you and have your posts removed to the relevant section.

Simple stay on topic boy

it's not off topic at all it shows that you chose to accept information without evidence, yet you try to prove others should not do the same...

Smile

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:12 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

DNA of Jesus?

Corroborating stories from different sources make them ore credible.
Not only that we have archeological evidence, DNA of the people who lived back then.
All can be added up to paint a very accurate picture for the time.

ore credible, have they tested rocks too......

what archaeological evidence, notice i can spell it...lol

what DNA of the people and what does that prove of Jesus.....

can it well paint the picture because at the moment you have nothing of any substance....

We can tell how people looked for the time from DNA and they have done this many times from samples.
You do know they can reconstruct how people looked dont you?
You do know there have been advances in this with science.
What do you think forensics is?

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:14 pm

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Off topic
Which there is plenty of debates on evolution.
Try again and stay on topic or I will report you and have your posts removed to the relevant section.

Simple stay on topic boy

it's not off topic at all it shows that you chose to accept information without evidence, yet you try to prove others should not do the same...

Look its very simple evolution has been explained to you so many times, but you are as thick as shit and as seen here try to ruin every debate, because you are a complete fuckwit.
So back on ignore you go.
I am not wasting my time with such stupidity, and you are very stupid.

So I shall wait to see if others want to debate

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:20 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

it's not off topic at all it shows that you chose to accept information without evidence, yet you try to prove others should not do the same...

Look its very simple evolution has been explained to you so many times, but you are as thick as shit and as seen here try to ruin every debate, because you are a complete fuckwit.
So back on ignore you go.
I am not wasting my time with such stupidity, and you are very stupid.

So I shall wait to see if others want to debate

ha ha ha it has been explained so many times but by your opinion and i have no way to test the facts for myself, so if i did believe it I could only do so on faith in what I have been told...

you have been told many times God exists, will you accept that on faith??/

kinda weird when the boot is on the other foot eh..... Shocked

by Guest Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:23 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

ore credible, have they tested rocks too......

what archaeological evidence, notice i can spell it...lol

what DNA of the people and what does that prove of Jesus.....

can it well paint the picture because at the moment you have nothing of any substance....

We can tell how people looked for the time from DNA and they have done this many times from samples.
You do know they can reconstruct how people looked dont you?
You do know there have been advances in this with science.
What do you think forensics is?

of course we can tell how people looked by DNA... now give me a description of Jesus from the bible??

advance in what??/

forensics in this case prove what exactly???

Here are 9 ‘facts’ you know for sure about Jesus that are probably wrong Z

by Sponsored content