So why is it that you believe Thomas Jefferson existed and not Jesus?

If you apply the same reaoning you use to assess your belief in the existance of Jefferson, to the existance of Jesus - you should arrive to the same conclusion. If you are basing your belief of Jesus on what "He" believed - than nothing tangible is going to convince you - as your approach to the topic is illogical and defies common sense.

The question of "proof" lies in the testamonies of eyewitnesses, and in the Archeological finds which corroberate the accounts. This is done for every individual known in history. There is no better "proof" of who Shakespeare was and what he said and believed, than there is for Jesus. Yet, does anyone doubt there was a Shakespeare?

So the point is - what denotes "proof"?

hooray for people that post in threads they haven't read...

You are really clutching at straws now.

Nobody doubts there was a Shakespeare, because there are countless plays written by him. These plays do not contradict eachother, they are very well written peices of art. I would bet that there are some original pieces still in existence and that it can easily be proved that they were all penned by the same person. Shakespeare isnt asking anyone to live their lives differently, nor does he claim to be the son of God. There is no need for anyone to have made up his existence, whereas for Jesus and Christianity, there are a whole host of reasons why people might have done this. Maybe shakespeare was really a bloke called Bob, it doesnt really matter if we cant prove his entire existence. Someone wrote those plays.

Why i am even bothering to respond to such a ridiculous argument is beyond me.

YES I KNOW HE sed that he would come all in good time, AND thats all he sed but I believe he will come all in goood time.

Because, unlike Jesus, Jefferson can A.) Be accurately placed in History. B. There are multiple, independent sources that confirm that Jefferson C. Books actually written by Thomas Jefferson.

"Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:

* Mark: c. 68–73,[12] c 65-70[2]
* Matthew: c. 70–100.[12] c 80-85.[2] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[12], c 80-85[2]
* John: c 90-100,[2] c. 90–110,[13] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):

* Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
* Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
* Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
* John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

Sorry double post, browser screwed up.

I couldn't care less whether Thomas Jefferson ever lived.

No one wrote a book about Thomas Jefferson claiming that he was the son of God and that we NEED to believe in him or we'll be rejecting God.

I don't even question the idea that some guy named Jesus lived, denounced the ways of the God of Abraham and was crucified for it.

I do question the people who claim that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I would question anyone who claimed that Thomas Jefferson was born of a virgin.

I do question the people who claim that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham sent specifically to be crucified to make the God of Abraham happy so he could forgive man their sins.

I would question anyone who claimed this about Thomas Jefferson.

In fact, I question the very sanity of a God who lusts for blood sacrifices before he can forgive people.

I can forgive people without any need to have blood sacrifices made on my behalf. Why should I believe that the creator of this universe would be appeased by such absurd and violent acts?

The people who claim that Jesus was the Son of the God of Abraham make no sense. They have him denouncing the directives of that God. They have him demanding to be put BEFORE that God (i.e. they have Jesus saying something to the effect that no one can get to the father but by him!)

These are direct conflicts with the whole idea of the God of Abraham.

They aren't even reasonable.

If people wrote about Thomas Jefferson claiming such unreasonable things about him I'd probably question their sources as well.

I see no reason to believe anything that is written in the gospels about Jesus. It's far too conflicting with the previous stories of the Old Testament anyway.

Had it actually made sense I might give it some consideration. But it's truly absurd.

You'd have to believe that the God of Abraham is a lunatic God in order to believe the stories about Jesus.

You don't need to believe in anything absurd to believe in Thomas Jefferson.

Believing in Thomas Jefferson doesn't require that God is an idiot.

Beliving in the stories of Jesus does require that God is an idiot.

How do you justify a God that COMMANDS people not to put any other Gods before him, and COMMANDS that those people must murder any heathens that teachings against his word, AND THEN he turns around and sends his 'only begotten son' into that crowd to teach against God's previous doctrine and demand that he (the son) be put BEFORE the God of Abraham?

If that makes sense to you then clearly we'll never agree on anything because that makes absolutely no sense to me. Such a God would need to be totally inept.

To believe the authors of the Gospels I would need to believe that God is a complete idiot.

I don't need to believe anything about God to believe in Thomas Jefferson.

Actually he didn't say that.

He is recorded as having said that the prophecies of which he spoke would occur during the life times of the people he told them to . . . .


They didn't.

I have to whole heartedly agree with your last statement, as you demonstrate a serious ack of having educated yourself on what the bible actually says.

There's nothing like holding a stance from pure ignorance of a topic.
So please - take your own advice and stop commenting on topics you're uneducated about.

So your reference of proof is from unsubstanciated eye-witnesses - eh? You're making my point.

Well done Sherlock.

I have already stated, plainly, in this thread that i dont know very much about religion. But that doesnt mean either that i have pure ignorance on the topic. Even if i did, that doesnt mean i cant join in the discussion. Just because you think you are so much more highly educated on the subject doesnt intimidate me in the least. I cant believe you are resorting to that tactic so quickly.

For all your education on the bible, whatever that may be, all you have offered in reponse to me so far is random clap trap about Jefferson and Shakespeare, and then followed it up by calling ME ignorant.

I know so little in terms of facts about the bible, and thats all you have got?? Surely, with all your education, you must beable to put my views to shame?

And anyway, why should i educate myself on what the bible actually says, when there is plain proof(to those of us not blinkered to reality) that it is not the word of God. I would consider that a waste of my time.

And anyway, you cant use the bible to prove the bible, that is just plain silly. So whatever it is exactly that the bible does say, is irrelavent in this topic.

That is hugely ironic coming from you.

http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Thomas-Jefferson/dp/0486442896

... Because an Autobiography, and the tons of other evidence that Jefferson lived, doesn't count. Right. I think you really need to go back to school.

There is proof that Jefferson Lived. He wrote an Autobiography. He lived a life that was uniquely his.

There is no proof Jesus lived. Jesus didn't write about his life. The story of Jesus had been circling the Mediterranean for thousands of years before he came around.(IF he came around.)

The only place that there is no proof that Jefferson lived is in your head, where you have to twist the meanings of words around to make yourself feel like you are winning.

I'm not claiming your ignorance - I'm quoting you on it. You've already demonstrated by your own words that you are not familiar with the bible - so I ask you this. What proof that it is not the word of God? Someone else's opinion?

I would suggest that if you want proof that it is not the word of God - then you read it for yourself and make your own decision about it, and not rely on what someone else thinks about it - as you are likely not aware of their bias' about it - or if in fact they know enough about what they're saying to be even qualified to give evidence of proof that it is NOT the word of God - when that is only something that God himself could do.

Again - it's a matter of what the criteria for "proof" is.

Care to back up that statement with some sort of example.

Again - you're missing the point. Where's the "proof". What is determining that this is factual?

The proof that jesus lived comes from those who were eye-witnesses to his being here.

The proof we have of Jefferson comes from eye-witnesses who testified of his being here. Of those who claim that the documents of Jefferson were indeed - from his pen.

For there is no one alive today who can give testamony to either of them. Obviously - it stands to reason that there is more testamony for Jefferson - since he lived a mere two hundred years ago, rather than two thousand years ago - but the fact remains - the "proof" for either one comes from documentation alone. Therefore - you are hard pressed to "prove" the likelihood that one existed while the other did not. It is a self contradiction to make that claim, as the premise for proving either one existed is the same - so the result of your argument should logically be the same.

Example:

the chance that the your "god" is the real deal

is equal to every other religions' "claim" to truth

religion (any religion) is great for some people - they use it for whatever their purpose
and in that sense - religion is a wonderful and necessary part of human development. when <name your fav. religion> finally disolves, humans will just invent another

but the logical, educated crowd recognizes religions' "truthful" claims are just silly

ever read einstein's paper on religion? it'll make an atheist out of any scientific mind

omg, omg, what shall we do, when all the words in the universe ring true, when all words come home to brew, when the dragon come forth and devour all self pride in humble hue, when all mankind rise from the ashe and sing all was but true???

all that think and strive to be the winner, but lose the prize of eagle eye's, that see thru the smoke and mirror, and but win for itself a bumpy downtrodden fervor, but a trip down the mighty self damning self pride river.