Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[Mars_ax]

"There is however a large number of secular theologians and biblical scholars (including me) who've found "Jesus" to be historically non-existent." What exactly is a large number? Whatever that number is, is it also safe to say that an even larger number believe him to have actually existed? I'm no self proclaimed expert on this topic but it would seem that if more secular theologians and biblical scholars believed that then it would be a more widely held belief versus a small percentage and even more so in the intellectual circles. I'm agnostic and have done a fair amount of reading from both sides of the street on Christianity and Jesus particularly and can't say I've read a book from the secular side denying he even existed. I've read a lot with differing opinions on the details and timeline of his life but none that out and out denied him to even have existed. To believe he never lived is to then believe that he was created by a group of people as a imaginary figure head that then spawned one of the largest religions in history. More so that the authors of all the letters written to the different churches of the day chronicling his life were complicit in the fraud. I think it is rather easy to dismiss a man for the lack of record of his life when his familiarity came well after his death. Not to mention its not like we can head over to a public records depository from 2k years ago and furthermore that there is no records of probably more 99% of the people that lived and died during the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. Dismissing the beliefs of the Muslim and Jewish religions acknowledgement of Jesus as simply a popularity vote fails to take into account that they more than anyone would benefit from factual proof that he never walked this Earth and state it daily. IMHO it almost takes more of a degree of faith to believe that the man that spawned one of the largest religions in the world was actually just a conspiracy created by a group of people than to even acknowledge he did in fact walk this Earth at one point.

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

[:::PSL:::]

....


I don't doubt God's existence anymore. I believe we have a mighty creator.

[Kev]

"There is however a large number of secular theologians and biblical scholars (including me) who've found "Jesus" to be historically non-existent." What exactly is a large number? Whatever that number is, is it also safe to say that an even larger number believe him to have actually existed? I'm no self proclaimed expert on this topic but it would seem that if more secular theologians and biblical scholars believed that then it would be a more widely held belief versus a small percentage and even more so in the intellectual circles. I'm agnostic and have done a fair amount of reading from both sides of the street on Christianity and Jesus particularly and can't say I've read a book from the secular side denying he even existed. I've read a lot with differing opinions on the details and timeline of his life but none that out and out denied him to even have existed. To believe he never lived is to then believe that he was created by a group of people as a imaginary figure head that then spawned one of the largest religions in history. More so that the authors of all the letters written to the different churches of the day chronicling his life were complicit in the fraud. I think it is rather easy to dismiss a man for the lack of record of his life when his familiarity came well after his death. Not to mention its not like we can head over to a public records depository from 2k years ago and furthermore that there is no records of probably more 99% of the people that lived and died during the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. Dismissing the beliefs of the Muslim and Jewish religions acknowledgement of Jesus as simply a popularity vote fails to take into account that they more than anyone would benefit from factual proof that he never walked this Earth and state it daily. IMHO it almost takes more of a degree of faith to believe that the man that spawned one of the largest religions in the world was actually just a conspiracy created by a group of people than to even acknowledge he did in fact walk this Earth at one point.

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

[Beanz]

"There is however a large number of secular theologians and biblical scholars (including me) who've found "Jesus" to be historically non-existent." What exactly is a large number? Whatever that number is, is it also safe to say that an even larger number believe him to have actually existed? I'm no self proclaimed expert on this topic but it would seem that if more secular theologians and biblical scholars believed that then it would be a more widely held belief versus a small percentage and even more so in the intellectual circles. I'm agnostic and have done a fair amount of reading from both sides of the street on Christianity and Jesus particularly and can't say I've read a book from the secular side denying he even existed. I've read a lot with differing opinions on the details and timeline of his life but none that out and out denied him to even have existed. To believe he never lived is to then believe that he was created by a group of people as a imaginary figure head that then spawned one of the largest religions in history. More so that the authors of all the letters written to the different churches of the day chronicling his life were complicit in the fraud. I think it is rather easy to dismiss a man for the lack of record of his life when his familiarity came well after his death. Not to mention its not like we can head over to a public records depository from 2k years ago and furthermore that there is no records of probably more 99% of the people that lived and died during the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. Dismissing the beliefs of the Muslim and Jewish religions acknowledgement of Jesus as simply a popularity vote fails to take into account that they more than anyone would benefit from factual proof that he never walked this Earth and state it daily. IMHO it almost takes more of a degree of faith to believe that the man that spawned one of the largest religions in the world was actually just a conspiracy created by a group of people than to even acknowledge he did in fact walk this Earth at one point.

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

People throughout history have been willing to die for all manner of bizarre beliefs this does not lead any credence to their beliefs only to their misplaced sincerity. In fact it does not even prove all of their sincerity, some could well be fabricated accounts as are many of the myths relating to the martyrdom of saints. Many Pagans, Jews, Muslims and Atheists have been tortured, skinned alive, burnt and murdered BY Christians, does that mean all their beliefs are grounded in historically irrefutable truths? The true birth of the Christian church happened under the Roman emperor Constantine 300 years after the death of Jesus. The kind of evidence that would convince non-believers would be non-biblical and around the time of Jesus life not 30 years after his death. There is plenty of historical evidence that William the Conqueror existed including eyewitness accounts written while he was alive, whereas the evidence for Jesus is all written by those attaching themselves to his cult and writing years after his death. Through various accounts we have a very clear picture of why the Battle of Hastings occurred unlike the disciples who can not agree on many of the simple details that supposedly happened to Jesus.

[Kev]

"There is however a large number of secular theologians and biblical scholars (including me) who've found "Jesus" to be historically non-existent." What exactly is a large number? Whatever that number is, is it also safe to say that an even larger number believe him to have actually existed? I'm no self proclaimed expert on this topic but it would seem that if more secular theologians and biblical scholars believed that then it would be a more widely held belief versus a small percentage and even more so in the intellectual circles. I'm agnostic and have done a fair amount of reading from both sides of the street on Christianity and Jesus particularly and can't say I've read a book from the secular side denying he even existed. I've read a lot with differing opinions on the details and timeline of his life but none that out and out denied him to even have existed. To believe he never lived is to then believe that he was created by a group of people as a imaginary figure head that then spawned one of the largest religions in history. More so that the authors of all the letters written to the different churches of the day chronicling his life were complicit in the fraud. I think it is rather easy to dismiss a man for the lack of record of his life when his familiarity came well after his death. Not to mention its not like we can head over to a public records depository from 2k years ago and furthermore that there is no records of probably more 99% of the people that lived and died during the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. Dismissing the beliefs of the Muslim and Jewish religions acknowledgement of Jesus as simply a popularity vote fails to take into account that they more than anyone would benefit from factual proof that he never walked this Earth and state it daily. IMHO it almost takes more of a degree of faith to believe that the man that spawned one of the largest religions in the world was actually just a conspiracy created by a group of people than to even acknowledge he did in fact walk this Earth at one point.

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

People throughout history have been willing to die for all manner of bizarre beliefs this does not lead any credence to their beliefs only to their misplaced sincerity. In fact it does not even prove all of their sincerity, some could well be fabricated accounts as are many of the myths relating to the martyrdom of saints. Many Pagans, Jews, Muslims and Atheists have been tortured, skinned alive, burnt and murdered BY Christians, does that mean all their beliefs are grounded in historically irrefutable truths? The true birth of the Christian church happened under the Roman emperor Constantine 300 years after the death of Jesus. The kind of evidence that would convince non-believers would be non-biblical and around the time of Jesus life not 30 years after his death. There is plenty of historical evidence that William the Conqueror existed including eyewitness accounts written while he was alive, whereas the evidence for Jesus is all written by those attaching themselves to his cult and writing years after his death. Through various accounts we have a very clear picture of why the Battle of Hastings occurred unlike the disciples who can not agree on many of the simple details that supposedly happened to Jesus.

Tell us a few then. What other massive worldwide faiths and movements have people sacrificed themselves to proclaim that were founded on absolutely nothing at all?

Please tell me the scenario of how this worked. Ok, so Jesus didn't exist. He never was. So why did he have followers? Or did his first followers not exist either?

It's a completely ludicrous logic you are using. Anyway, as you said above, this kind of worldwide faith movement without a founder happens all the time so just remind me of the other ones.

Why did Tacitus a Roman Historian, and Josephus, a Jew mention this non existant man in their works?

[Mars_ax]

.

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

It's pretty obvious that you've bought it all hook, line and sinker Bilbo.

It's also obvious that you're oblivious to the fact that there's not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.

I hope this helps.

[Kev]

"There is however a large number of secular theologians and biblical scholars (including me) who've found "Jesus" to be historically non-existent." What exactly is a large number? Whatever that number is, is it also safe to say that an even larger number believe him to have actually existed? I'm no self proclaimed expert on this topic but it would seem that if more secular theologians and biblical scholars believed that then it would be a more widely held belief versus a small percentage and even more so in the intellectual circles. I'm agnostic and have done a fair amount of reading from both sides of the street on Christianity and Jesus particularly and can't say I've read a book from the secular side denying he even existed. I've read a lot with differing opinions on the details and timeline of his life but none that out and out denied him to even have existed. To believe he never lived is to then believe that he was created by a group of people as a imaginary figure head that then spawned one of the largest religions in history. More so that the authors of all the letters written to the different churches of the day chronicling his life were complicit in the fraud. I think it is rather easy to dismiss a man for the lack of record of his life when his familiarity came well after his death. Not to mention its not like we can head over to a public records depository from 2k years ago and furthermore that there is no records of probably more 99% of the people that lived and died during the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. Dismissing the beliefs of the Muslim and Jewish religions acknowledgement of Jesus as simply a popularity vote fails to take into account that they more than anyone would benefit from factual proof that he never walked this Earth and state it daily. IMHO it almost takes more of a degree of faith to believe that the man that spawned one of the largest religions in the world was actually just a conspiracy created by a group of people than to even acknowledge he did in fact walk this Earth at one point.

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

It's pretty obvious that you've bought it all hook, line and sinker Bilbo.

It's also obvious that you're oblivious to the fact that there's not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.

I hope this helps.

Bought what hook, line and sinker? I've said nothing about the divinity of Christ here, His mission, the accuracy of the Gospels. I'm just using simple logic to prove that He must have existed.

Please give me a single example in human history of a movement that is grounded in actual history not having a founder.

[Mars_ax]

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

It's pretty obvious that you've bought it all hook, line and sinker Bilbo.

It's also obvious that you're oblivious to the fact that there's not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.

I hope this helps.

Bought what hook, line and sinker? I've said nothing about the divinity of Christ here, His mission, the accuracy of the Gospels. I'm just using simple logic to prove that He must have existed.

Please give me a single example in human history of a movement that is grounded in actual history not having a founder.

Don't you find it a bit odd that "the founder" of Christianity never actually wrote anything himself? And don't you find it a bit suspicious that virtually nothing was written about the alleged Jesus during his lifetime? Here's a dude who's alleged to have spoke to multitudes of followers all over the "holyland", but no contemporary author writes a fucking word about him? Give a break man...

Oh, and Bilbo, please tell me who all these "eyewitnesses" are, fictitious characters in the gospels?

PS. Clue: an eyewitness is someone who witnesses an event, et al, it becomes "hearsay" when someone else writes about what an "eyewitness" has alleged to have seen (but didn't write about themselves) 50 to 100 years later.

[Kev]

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

It's pretty obvious that you've bought it all hook, line and sinker Bilbo.

It's also obvious that you're oblivious to the fact that there's not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.

I hope this helps.

Bought what hook, line and sinker? I've said nothing about the divinity of Christ here, His mission, the accuracy of the Gospels. I'm just using simple logic to prove that He must have existed.

Please give me a single example in human history of a movement that is grounded in actual history not having a founder.

Don't you find it a bit odd that "the founder" of Christianity never actually wrote anything himself? And don't you find it a bit suspicious that virtually nothing was written about the alleged Jesus during his lifetime? Here's a dude who's speaking to the multitudes all over the holyland, but no contemporary author writes a fucking word about him? Give a break man...
Oh, and Bilbo, please tell me who all these "eyewitnesses" are, fictitious characters in the gospels?

Why is it odd that there were no writings? He wasn't a nobleman of aristocratic birth. He didn't hold a high office during his earthly life, he was a travelling preacher and healer of the sick. The imperial powers and those of importance would have largely disregarded him during his life. He mixed with the downtrodden, coomon folk, the kinds that don't generally leave much in the way of historical record.

What do you think of the writings of Socrates? He musn't have existed either seeing as nithing remains and we only have the records of his followers.

What about Pythagorus?

It's very common in the ancient world for there to be no information and writings from a great historical figure. Their work is remembered and passed down by their followers and later historians.

This doesn't mean it's not authentic. They are still the product of the world they lived in, and cannot simply be invented.

If, as you suggest Jesus didn't exist then why did people believe he did 40 years later? How did his followers, or whoever wanted to create this ruse manage to invent a figure who performed miracles throughout Israel with thousands of witnesses, and place him 40 years previously when there would still be people alive from that time to challenge it?

If you have any understanding at all of Jewish history, you would know that they take their history very very seriously indeed. At that time all the Jewish people could trace their ancestory back to one of the twelve tribes, they were meticulous. You could no more invent an historical figure back then than you could now.

Imagine somebody trying to invent a great figure now from 1970 and giving them a back story and claiming a huge national impact. How could it happen?

Jesus' sayings and teachings were passed on orally, just as virtually all sayings and the like were back then. It was an ancient, rural community, they had no ipads, internet, typwriters,or even paper. There was no printing press. Writings were written down on massive scrolls and parchments, an expensive and arduous undertaken.

The fact that his story was deemed so important tthat it was written down (and not by one person but many seperately) attests to the impact that the man had.

To say that because he left no written evidence therefore he didn't exist is simply an idiotic conclusion. You might just as well say the same about a tyrannosaur.

[Kev]

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

It's pretty obvious that you've bought it all hook, line and sinker Bilbo.

It's also obvious that you're oblivious to the fact that there's not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.

I hope this helps.

Bought what hook, line and sinker? I've said nothing about the divinity of Christ here, His mission, the accuracy of the Gospels. I'm just using simple logic to prove that He must have existed.

Please give me a single example in human history of a movement that is grounded in actual history not having a founder.

Don't you find it a bit odd that "the founder" of Christianity never actually wrote anything himself? And don't you find it a bit suspicious that virtually nothing was written about the alleged Jesus during his lifetime? Here's a dude who's alleged to have spoke to multitudes of followers all over the "holyland", but no contemporary author writes a fucking word about him? Give a break man...

Oh, and Bilbo, please tell me who all these "eyewitnesses" are, fictitious characters in the gospels?

PS. Clue: an eyewitness is someone who witnesses an event, et al, it becomes "hearsay" when someone else writes about what an eyewitness alleges to have seen (but didn't write about themselves) 50 to 100 years later.

Let's just look at this bit to see how silly it is.

Could you invent a character now from 50 years ago? Forget about television and written evidence, just imagine you live in a small isolated village with no tv, no radio, no written records, just people's memories.

Now imagine that you want to invent a miraculous man who 50 years ago came into the village and healed everybody, claimed to be God, was crucified and rose from the dead.

He's not real, you've just made him up now but you want everyone to believe it.

Now there will be people in that village who have lived there for 50 years. They will also have had children and grandchildren, and presumably uf they witnessed such things then they would most definitely have passed this information on to their own children right?

So how would it have been forgotten in the 50 years from when it happened to when you made up the story?

You can't make up history and then retroactively transplant it back in time, because if he really did perform miracles in Gallilee for example it's a fair bet that 50 years later people would remember them!

Seriously can you not see how retarded this idea of yours is?

[Mars_ax]

Seriously can you not see how retarded this idea of yours is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So anyone one that doesn't agree with you is silly and retarded? And here I thought that miles was the only condescending, know it all, asshole on this forum. - debate/discussion over.

[Andre]

"There is however a large number of secular theologians and biblical scholars (including me) who've found "Jesus" to be historically non-existent." What exactly is a large number? Whatever that number is, is it also safe to say that an even larger number believe him to have actually existed? I'm no self proclaimed expert on this topic but it would seem that if more secular theologians and biblical scholars believed that then it would be a more widely held belief versus a small percentage and even more so in the intellectual circles. I'm agnostic and have done a fair amount of reading from both sides of the street on Christianity and Jesus particularly and can't say I've read a book from the secular side denying he even existed. I've read a lot with differing opinions on the details and timeline of his life but none that out and out denied him to even have existed. To believe he never lived is to then believe that he was created by a group of people as a imaginary figure head that then spawned one of the largest religions in history. More so that the authors of all the letters written to the different churches of the day chronicling his life were complicit in the fraud. I think it is rather easy to dismiss a man for the lack of record of his life when his familiarity came well after his death. Not to mention its not like we can head over to a public records depository from 2k years ago and furthermore that there is no records of probably more 99% of the people that lived and died during the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. Dismissing the beliefs of the Muslim and Jewish religions acknowledgement of Jesus as simply a popularity vote fails to take into account that they more than anyone would benefit from factual proof that he never walked this Earth and state it daily. IMHO it almost takes more of a degree of faith to believe that the man that spawned one of the largest religions in the world was actually just a conspiracy created by a group of people than to even acknowledge he did in fact walk this Earth at one point.

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

Obviously something massive went down, otherwise we would not have the dates as BC and AD.

[VictorCharlie]

"There is however a large number of secular theologians and biblical scholars (including me) who've found "Jesus" to be historically non-existent." What exactly is a large number? Whatever that number is, is it also safe to say that an even larger number believe him to have actually existed? I'm no self proclaimed expert on this topic but it would seem that if more secular theologians and biblical scholars believed that then it would be a more widely held belief versus a small percentage and even more so in the intellectual circles. I'm agnostic and have done a fair amount of reading from both sides of the street on Christianity and Jesus particularly and can't say I've read a book from the secular side denying he even existed. I've read a lot with differing opinions on the details and timeline of his life but none that out and out denied him to even have existed. To believe he never lived is to then believe that he was created by a group of people as a imaginary figure head that then spawned one of the largest religions in history. More so that the authors of all the letters written to the different churches of the day chronicling his life were complicit in the fraud. I think it is rather easy to dismiss a man for the lack of record of his life when his familiarity came well after his death. Not to mention its not like we can head over to a public records depository from 2k years ago and furthermore that there is no records of probably more 99% of the people that lived and died during the time Jesus was supposed to be alive. Dismissing the beliefs of the Muslim and Jewish religions acknowledgement of Jesus as simply a popularity vote fails to take into account that they more than anyone would benefit from factual proof that he never walked this Earth and state it daily. IMHO it almost takes more of a degree of faith to believe that the man that spawned one of the largest religions in the world was actually just a conspiracy created by a group of people than to even acknowledge he did in fact walk this Earth at one point.

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

Could one not also state that there is no secular historical evidence confirming he didn't exist? Also you didn't answer my question. What percentage of historians believe Jesus to be a fictional character?

[VictorCharlie]

Seriously, your putting Bilbo on ignore for calling you a retard? You got to have thicker skin man and you didn't even attempt to refute his points. Mars got owned in the argument and is taking his toys and going home.

[Mars_ax]

Seriously, your putting Bilbo on ignore for calling you a retard? You got to have thicker skin man and you didn't even attempt to refute his points. Mars got owned in the argument and is taking his toys and going home.

I'll have a discussion with anybody about anything as long they don't start debating like a condescending douche. When they do that ends it, I'm not gonna debate some blithering, insulting jack-off.

FYI, I was born in post war Japan 1948 and spent the first 18 years of my life on military bases, I joined the military in 1967 during the VietNam war and got out in 1971. I'm not going to bore you with the rest of my life's story, but I can promise you this soldier boy, having thin skin ain't one of my fucking problems. So take your toys, and stick 'um up yer ass.