Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[Kev]

Sigh.

OK I insist Jesus really did exist.

Exhibit 1, Please disprove this at your own leisure.

Tactius, the greatest Roman historian mentioned him in his Annals.

I never claimed that Tacitus lived 300 years after Jesus, it is not my belief. It is like i said when your Christian church was formed, completely and utterly disproving your claim that the church arose immediately following this Jesus death
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from your quoted reference on Tacitus

Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[44] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as for Josephus

The Antiquities of the Jews survives only in medieval copies. The manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century, are all Greek minuscules, and all have been copied by Christian monks

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you still haven't answered the question

"Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts."

Amazing how christian apologists point to a brief mention by Tacitus, of a "Christus" in his Annals well after the alleged life of Jesus as definitive secular proof of his existence. I reckon when you're grasping at straws it's the best you can do.

Did Jesus exist?

You and Greenbeanz are morons, seriously.

I don't mean to be offensive but the evidence is overwhelming.

You say there is no historical mention of him. I point out that the greatest Roman historian mentioned him and provided evidence of a Christian revolt as early as AD 60 and you doubt the source, as if Tacitus, one of the worlds greatest ever historians is not sufficient. Of course, the Gospels, 4 seperate accounts, and the numerous apocrophyal works as well don't count to you either because you don't like what they say.

Tacitus establishes that by AD60 Christians were already both distinctly seperate from Jews (and this coming from a Roman remember) and that they were a sizable, and persecuted minority.


Jesus died around AD33. So it is historically proven that within 30 years Christianity had already grown into a sizeable force, with martyrs and preachers travelling the lands. Obviously that didn't spring up in AD59 but must have been decades in production, which proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt that there must have been a real, historical figure who was the basis for this revolutionary movement.

You are simply wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. The Bible wasn't 'invented' 300 years after the supposed events. It was real history that people experienced.

You can run to your stupid little websites and grab some quotes without understanding what you are quoting, but you are simply wrong.

There is as much historical verification for the life of the historical Jesus Christ as there is for the existance of the historical Julius Ceasar.

You and Greenbeanz are spouting a lot of nonsense.

Now I'm not arguing for the truth of Jesus's claims. I cannot provide any evidence that he healed the sick or raiswd the dead. Those are matters of faith and beyond this discussion. But the claim that he never existed at all simply cannot be taken seriously, and isn't by any serious scholars or historians.

[Kev]

Oh and Tacitus was born in AD 56 not AD 64, you added another 8 years.

And your idea that this was too far apart from the lifetime of Jesus is fucking mornoic.

Would an historian today born in 1980 not be qualified to write a book about 1950's post war Britain?

What about a scholar born in 1980 writing about a man who lived 2000 years ago? We know more about the Roman world 2000 years and several cultures detached, then Tacitus did writing 30 years later, and as a part of that world?

Seriously, think about what you are saying before you speak. It might help.

Again, no offense.

[Gandalf]

Bilbo is right on this. The evidence for the existence of Jesus as a functioning pooing human being is legitimate. Even I, the great atheist, have no qualms with his existence.

Jesus was simply the Chomsky of his time. A decent chap trying to do good things. I'm not angry with Jesus as I would probably share a cup of tea with him. It's the power mongers that I loathe.

[Kev]

Bilbo is right on this. The evidence for the existence of Jesus as a functioning pooing human being is legitimate. Even I, the great atheist, have no qualms with his existence.

Jesus was simply the Chomsky of his time. A decent chap trying to do good things. I'm not angry with Jesus as I would probably share a cup of tea with him. It's the power mongers that I loathe.

He would impress you as you could give him a cup of dirty water and he would turn it into a nice hot mug of Twinings English Breakfast. Heavenly.

[Gandalf]

Bilbo is right on this. The evidence for the existence of Jesus as a functioning pooing human being is legitimate. Even I, the great atheist, have no qualms with his existence.

Jesus was simply the Chomsky of his time. A decent chap trying to do good things. I'm not angry with Jesus as I would probably share a cup of tea with him. It's the power mongers that I loathe.

He would impress you as you could give him a cup of dirty water and he would turn it into a nice hot mug of Twinings English Breakfast. Heavenly.

Chomsky + Tommy Cooper. It's no wonder the locals were impressed with him.

[Kev]

Bilbo is right on this. The evidence for the existence of Jesus as a functioning pooing human being is legitimate. Even I, the great atheist, have no qualms with his existence.

Jesus was simply the Chomsky of his time. A decent chap trying to do good things. I'm not angry with Jesus as I would probably share a cup of tea with him. It's the power mongers that I loathe.

He would impress you as you could give him a cup of dirty water and he would turn it into a nice hot mug of Twinings English Breakfast. Heavenly.

Chomsky + Tommy Cooper. It's no wonder the locals were impressed with him.

His routine must have been amazing. How his dinner hosts would have cheered when after drinking the tea he would have stood up and said 'And there's more..' and then gone outside and retunred with dead Auntie Maude, all wrapped up in linen, pulled the wraps off her and then helped her to her feet to a nice round of applause and a nice cream sponge cake.

[superheavyrhun]

Bilbo is right on this. The evidence for the existence of Jesus as a functioning pooing human being is legitimate. Even I, the great atheist, have no qualms with his existence.

Jesus was simply the Chomsky of his time. A decent chap trying to do good things. I'm not angry with Jesus as I would probably share a cup of tea with him. It's the power mongers that I loathe.

He would impress you as you could give him a cup of dirty water and he would turn it into a nice hot mug of Twinings English Breakfast. Heavenly.

Chomsky + Tommy Cooper. It's no wonder the locals were impressed with him.

His routine must have been amazing. How his dinner hosts would have cheered when after drinking the tea he would have stood up and said 'And there's more..' and then gone outside and retunred with dead Auntie Maude, all wrapped up in linen, pulled the wraps off her and then helped her to her feet to a nice round of applause and a nice cream sponge cake.

That Maude was as mad as a sack of ferrets in the chicken coop and twice as mean. I think the trick would have been to turn her into a cream sponge cake.

[Beanz]

Bilbo you said
"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."

You say this as though people believing something is the same as evidence, and as though there are numerous eyewitness accounts of his resurrection. So what is it ? did they witness him coming back from the dead or were they deluded? If they made up the second bit why believe the first bit? or do you believe he did come back from the dead?

Mars said that he did not believe the Jesus described in the Gospels

“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.”

So don’t now pretend

"Now I'm not arguing for the truth of Jesus's claims. I cannot provide any evidence that he healed the sick or raiswd the dead. Those are matters of faith and beyond this discussion. But the claim that he never existed at all simply cannot be taken seriously, and isn't by any serious scholars or historians."

Mars showed you scholars who take his claim seriously

Mars said there was virtually no secular historical evidence

you quoted a massive total of two scholars only one of which was not copied by Christian monks then you chose to conveniently ignore all the cogent points made that throw doubt on this Jesus described in the Gospels and pretend that the whole argument was about an ordinary man called Jesus. Not Tacitus's Christus, Not Jesus Christ the divine, but ordinary Jesus who nobody questioned existing.Then you complained because your attention was drawn to a website that you quoted in your defence and tried to make out that it was not you who didn't think before you quoted.

Miles look at again at what Bilbo is saying, we are not talking about a guy called Jesus existing . Bilbo refers to him as a healer as one who was raised again. He insists the Bible's outrageous claims must be true because if they were not everyone in the area would dispute them. You can not separate out the Jesus in the Bible from his divinity, miracle working, resurrection and virgin birth without accepting that the person you are discussing is no longer "the Jesus depicted in the "gospels".