by White Dove 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I have not heard of one single (non-shroud of Turin) piece of evidence that Jesus ever walked the earth.
Please give me non-Biblical and non-shroud of Turin evidence that has been found that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Jesus of the Bible walked the earth.
Is that too much to ask? The Bible says it happened but gives no proof to support its statements.
The Shroud of Turin has not been established as proof of anything beyond a good wax and dye job.
Not only is there proof but he was a cat...
Finally, someone got pictures and moving ones at that!
I knew Baste would come in my lifetime. I had faith and was rewarded for it.
In all seriousness the one thing that makes me believe that he existed is the year. Why would our years be based upon a man that never existed. I am not saying Jesus is God or God's son, but he must have been an important man to have the calender based upon him.
Paul
digderidoo:
In all seriousness the one thing that makes me believe that he existed is the year. Why would our years be based upon a man that never existed. I am not saying Jesus is God or God's son, but he must have been an important man to have the calender based upon him.
Only that you preface your comment with the phrase "In all seriousness" I'd have to assume you were joking. That's possibly the worst reason I've ever heard for believing that Jesus really existed. The briefest smidgen of research would have been enough for you to know that the current dating system we use was not invented until the 6th century and didn't become widely adopted for a few more centuries. And mere common sense should tell you that while it is extremely likely that those who instituted the system (i.e. the Catholic Church) believed Jesus was a real person, this has virtually no bearing on whether he actually existed.
Hey, in that Jesus-cat-movie: that`s got to be shallow water, right? Or is there some physics-thing I have misunderstood?
Also, on the date thing, check out Zeitgeist. It explains that the year one thing is actually based on astrological ages, in this case the age of Pices, which is also the origin and reason for the Jesus fish sign.
The idea of the calendar being based on Jesus making it valid is kind of funny to me. Especially since no one can even agree on the year of his birth, much less the actual day.
Other calendars were based on things that most Christians today would call 'myth', so a calendar being the final word-or even A word on this subject is kind of funny.
What if the man didn't exist? What if he did?
