Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[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.

[Pavlik]

never. we're currently having financial issues, this monday i just found out i passed the npte exams. one of the best days ever. thank God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[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".

[Mars_ax]

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".

Assuming that a holy man named Jesus existed, it's safe to say that if nothing was written about him until a minimum of 50 to 100 years after his alleged death, the text would have to be based not on eyewitness testimony, but fabricated totally from hearsay. It makes you wonder what the unknown authors of the gospels actually had to go by, since "jesus" never wrote anything himself and they were the first to write about him 50+ years AD.

[Beanz]

Bilbo you are right people do talk a lot of krap on the internet. Richard Dawkins is not my saviour, and his concession that a historical figure called Jesus existed, when faced with a cretinous fool who then thought it was a small jump from there to Jesus actually being God is neither here nor there. Of course you can never accept the fact that the Jesus described in the Gospels may be fictional.It would mean denying your saviour. You have already dismissed the majority of the scientific community with your claim that the universe was created. The only cast iron thing about your loony assertions is that they are based on faith and not logic.