No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.
Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.
2006-07-27 13:25:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by jmatt_inc 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
God is neither male nor female. Why would God need to be either? Remember, religeons were originally denied to women, and were written about by men, who automatically ASSUMED Got to be male, proving how vain mankind really is. God is God, no sex, no denomination, and doesnt judge based on religeous preference, gender, nationality or any of that. God only judges your actions, not your labels. God is a spirit, a power, not a being sitting on a throne with a sceptor, white beard flowing down, as God has been portrayed in the past. Look at the old portrayal of heaven, everybody with wings, sitting on clouds playing a harp for all eternity. That doesnt sound like eternal rest to me, just a change in job title, to musician, and I cant stand harp music.
2006-07-26 15:49:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Darqblade 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is nothing "cute" about you. Jesus was a man, was He not? I would rather think that God per se, as sexless. Just because the Holy Spirit brought the seed to Mary, makes no difference, because God created the seed. The only need for the Messiah to be born of woman anyway, is so he would be able to feel the pain, think, and act in a mortal way. If he had not these human traits, they could never have killed his body. They couldn't kill His soul, nor mine, because it is immortal.
2006-07-26 15:48:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by stullerrl 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In the Bible, God is described mostly in male terms. He is described as the "Father." Humans can relate to this, for in most societies, the father (and the males) are seen as the protectors, and providers. In most cultures through history, it was the men who went out and hunted, and the men who fought against invaders, to protect their families and clans.
However, God is also given feminine attributes in the bible as well from time to time. I don't have my bible handy at the moment, but there is at least one place where he compares himself to a mother, saying something like "Can a mother forsake her child? But I will never forsake you, O Israel..."
And Jesus described himself as a mother as well, when he wept for Jerusalem. He said, "O Jerusalem, how I have longed to gather you together as a hen gathers her chicks, but you were not willing."
So there is room for both descriptions. I believe God is described as a Father most often because it is an image that we humans can identify with. Of course, God is neither male nor female, and I think that point is made somewhere within the bible's pages. But "father" and "he" are just descriptive terms for our benefit.
Interestingly, many feminists cry foul at God being described as male, but they don't seem to be bothered by the fact that SATAN is also described as a male in the bible.... funny, isn't it?
Love, Jack
2006-07-26 15:50:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No God is not a male or female. God is free from genders. As Allah has stated in the Holy Quraan. "Allah Is Nothing Like His Ceations". And no man could come in his form or be an incarnation of him.
2006-07-26 15:47:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Hassan S 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
God created man in His own image. That is the reason God is a man. But yet again religion is a choice. I believe in God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is truth. But again, that is my choice to believe.
Thank you for you question and you have a great day...
2006-07-26 15:55:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by whenwhalesfly 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
He is a male pronoun. The Bible (which He personally dictated to the prophets and apostles) calls Him "He", "Him", "Father" and calls Jesus "Son" (both male terms, as well as all the male pronouns. The Spirit is also called "He". God is never called "it" or "she".
Jesus Himself also used the male pronouns for His Father and the Spirit, and since Jesus is God, I think we can know on pretty good authority that God is male.
2006-07-26 15:45:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Wayne A 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
We do not insist that God is Male we just use male terms to describe him because Traditionally Male terms are used for Power figures. And it is easier than Gender Neutral Terms like s/he or he/r and terms like "it" are not formal enough (although terms like Lord, Jehovah, God, and Yawheh are all gender Neutral)
2006-07-26 15:45:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Bible says God is male and Jesus called Him Father and not She.
God said He was not physical, but a spirit. We have faith that He's male, that's why it's called belief and faith; we do not need any more evidence.
2006-07-26 15:48:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by ♠I Did My Time♠ 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus (GOD incarnate) was a man> YET> God is a spirit. god created "man" in his image. After woman was created in the image of man. God is neither male nor female...but inorder that we humans could understand his essence through our senses and logic...he is "male-like"
2006-07-26 15:44:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
good question...maybe its because males are represented as a dominated figure....back in those days, as we all know, women where not equal...in my opinion...God is not a male nor female...from what I know and heard God never really had intercourse with anyone...Mary didn't say "I felt God on top of me"...why would God need to anyway if he could make humans by scrap..??..I think he gave us the sex organs for us to reproduce...why would he need them...God is a higher being which effects us in a physical, mental, spiritual, and realistic way...your right...no one knows...
2006-07-26 15:59:00
·
answer #11
·
answered by drama 3
·
0⤊
0⤋