Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[:::PSL:::]

....


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

[Andre]

Mars Ex, for Mans Thumb to be as it is took 4million years to develope, to what it is. They are finding things, Artifacts 200 million years old. Also the Footprint was of a man Humanoid 9 ft tall, in tests it was proved thats what it was, also finding numerous others, we dont know half of it

So much more that is beyond mental comprehension.
In the scale of ourselves to the Universe we are millions times smaller than a microbe is to us! And yet people think "they know" that there is no others out there and the same team of thinkers also claim there is no intelligence behind the balance and timing.They cannot see that there are other balances and other timings out there and within.

People who have insight go within on their search and they find something that people who can only look outwards claim isnt there.
'As above so below' were the wisest words ever written on Earth(For an inquisitive mind).
You get what you look for and you choose your own point of view and the direction you lok in and which way you head;so against the bible and other crap including controlled materialistic thought only; We all do our own saving by our own direction and actions, no one else is magically coming to do it for us whether we believe in them or not.
This is the truth that allows material thinkers to justify it against the false church of man and its changed writings. Those types who run a huge percentage of the worlds people through both man made religions do so for material gain and power over others, so they hide the real truth from all.
Trouble is, the real way has now been blocked twice in two directions, they have been very smart.

[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.

[Andre]

I've never, at least in my adult life, had any belief in the existence of "god". Gods/religions are man created concepts, designed to "guide" you though life, thanks, but no thanks, I can think just fine for myself.
Take Jesus for example, who if he actually existed (which I don't believe he did) was just a man, no more "special" than billions of other men, past and present.
It may sound pretentious and sacrilegious of me to a Christian, but why would I want to think like Jesus did or pattern my life after a schizophrenic holy-man who's probably a fictive character in a religious novel?

I get not believing Jesus was the son of god but history is pretty set that a man named Jesus of Nazareth did in fact walk the Earth and was crucified.

I've done a lot of research on the actual existence of Jesus, the reality is, his alleged existence isn't even close to becoming a forgone conclusion. My guess is Jesus was a composite of rabbis/holy-men that festered during that period in history. One thing that is certain, the "Jesus" character described in the "New Testament", written 50 to 300 years after his alleged death by unknown authors, is pure religious fiction and/or a holy fairytale.

BTW, Nazareth might not have even existed during the time "Jesus" was alleged to have "walked the earth".

Did Jesus exist?

The reason you cant find him by that name is because it wasnt his birth name.
(Some dick heads changed it).

It was Hebrew for a start well Aramaic then Hebrew.

It's not just the name Andre, I believe the "Jesus" character in the New Testament is pure fiction.

I too believe that the story is now changed and totally wrong and fiction but for the reason of deception.

I know the character you speak of, and he didnt get all the deep wisdom that is hidden within some scripture just from the Emerald tablet of Thoth Hermes. The deeper wisdom through love was actually lived out and written down.
Unfortunately it (like scripture) and the first movement, was got to and it is still being controlled as are the masses through it. So to call it all bullshit from an analytical point I dont blame you at all.
But I digress.

Its a hell of a subject :-)

[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.

[Kev]

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.

It's not about agreeing with me. Claiming Jesus never existed is like me saying dinosaurs never existed. It IS moronic.

Just think it through logically.

The Jews were no friends of the Christians, who they saw as an heretical cult. They also lived in Israel for hundreds of years, and most were not very socially mobile, thus living in villages for generations.

How is it possible for someone to invent a character 50/60 years previously,make grandiose claims of miraculous healings, thousands of followers, a public execution and then a claimed resurrection and then place him in the very villages that these Jews are living.

Do you not think that some of them might go 'Hang on a minute, we are living here at the time, this bloke never came around our way!'.

Again I ask you, if they made him up 50 years later, why did the Jewish people collude in this grand delusion and seemingly accept that this man really did live, even though presumably nobody had any memory of him whatsoever?

If this really is the extent of your though on this matter, then I repeat it is retarded.

No offence of course.


The birth of the Christian church is proof positive of the existence of the historical figure of Christ. It simply never would have got off the ground had the whole story been fabricated out of thin air.

Now I'm not saying anything concerning the Bible being true, or the gospels accurately portraying him, that is a matter of faith. But it cannot seriously be debated that he didn't exist at all.

[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.

It's not about agreeing with me. Claiming Jesus never existed is like me saying dinosaurs never existed. It IS moronic.

Just think it through logically.

The Jews were no friends of the Christians, who they saw as an heretical cult. They also lived in Israel for hundreds of years, and most were not very socially mobile, thus living in villages for generations.

How is it possible for someone to invent a character 50/60 years previously,make grandiose claims of miraculous healings, thousands of followers, a public execution and then a claimed resurrection and then place him in the very villages that these Jews are living.

Do you not think that some of them might go 'Hang on a minute, we are living here at the time, this bloke never came around our way!'.

Again I ask you, if they made him up 50 years later, why did the Jewish people collude in this grand delusion and seemingly accept that this man really did live, even though presumably nobody had any memory of him whatsoever?

If this really is the extent of your though on this matter, then I repeat it is retarded.

No offence of course.


The birth of the Christian church is proof positive of the existence of the historical figure of Christ. It simply never would have got off the ground had the whole story been fabricated out of thin air.

Now I'm not saying anything concerning the Bible being true, or the gospels accurately portraying him, that is a matter of faith. But it cannot seriously be debated that he didn't exist at all.

Right, and I hope you're not offended that i've put your pretentious/arrogant ass on ignore.

[Kev]

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.

It's not about agreeing with me. Claiming Jesus never existed is like me saying dinosaurs never existed. It IS moronic.

Just think it through logically.

The Jews were no friends of the Christians, who they saw as an heretical cult. They also lived in Israel for hundreds of years, and most were not very socially mobile, thus living in villages for generations.

How is it possible for someone to invent a character 50/60 years previously,make grandiose claims of miraculous healings, thousands of followers, a public execution and then a claimed resurrection and then place him in the very villages that these Jews are living.

Do you not think that some of them might go 'Hang on a minute, we are living here at the time, this bloke never came around our way!'.

Again I ask you, if they made him up 50 years later, why did the Jewish people collude in this grand delusion and seemingly accept that this man really did live, even though presumably nobody had any memory of him whatsoever?

If this really is the extent of your though on this matter, then I repeat it is retarded.

No offence of course.


The birth of the Christian church is proof positive of the existence of the historical figure of Christ. It simply never would have got off the ground had the whole story been fabricated out of thin air.

Now I'm not saying anything concerning the Bible being true, or the gospels accurately portraying him, that is a matter of faith. But it cannot seriously be debated that he didn't exist at all.

Right, and I hope you're not offended that i've put your pretentious/arrogant ass on ignore.

Not offended at all, another one bites the dust.