Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[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.

[Kev]

Greenbeanz. Do you have any idea of how ancient history study works, and how much contemporary material you would expect to find about any ancient figure?

There is as much contemporary written sources for the existance of Jesus as there is for Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Themistocles, Miltiades, Xerxes os any other great historical figure.

The Bible, whether you believe its claims or not is one of the most important historical documents of the ancient world, having 4 Gospels written about you in the Bible is in itself a massive proof that he existed. Having an independent Roman historian, the greatest historian no less, confirm that by AD 60 Chritisna were already noticeably split and distinct from the rest of the Jewish population, and had already started to be persecuted as a group confims beyond any doubt that the Christian movement must have began immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, it is simply not credible to hold any other opinion.

The names that Mars quoted are just names he grabbed from silly websites that spout false, spurious and outated nonense, like you are doing.

Again, as to Jesus' claims, the miracles, the healings, his death and resurrection. I couldn't care less if you believe any of that or not. I cannot, and have never pretended to be able to provide evidence or proof for that. Believing Jesus to be the Son of God is purely a matter of faith.

I have pointed out though that clearly, the early Christians, his immediate followers, and those they came into contact with and were the first converts, were so convinced of this truth, that they willingly suffered the most horrendous of deaths and tortures for this belief. Does that mean they were right when they believed they saw Jesus raised again, and witnessed his miracles? Not necessarily, but it does clearly show that he managed to convince them, and was therefore a real man.

You are really talking garbage. Look at the examples you gave that you compared to Jesus. Scientology, The Waco seige, let's look at some more Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnessess etc.

I agree with you most of these are based on nonsense. But how many were not founded by anybody? Scientology was the invention of Run HUbbard, The Waco cult, David Koresh. Mormonism Jospeh Smith. Did these people not exist either?

The evidence for the actual existence of an historical Jesus is beyond reasonable doubt. You are simply wrong to believe otherwise.

[BIG H]

There is one part of the Bible t precludes me from being a true follower, becuase I simply cannot adhere to the rule. This rule is....

"You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey"

I've had neighbours with fucking lovely Ox's and Donkey's and I always set my desire on them. And don't even get me started on the 'Manservant'

[Andre]

Greenbeanz. Do you have any idea of how ancient history study works, and how much contemporary material you would expect to find about any ancient figure?

There is as much contemporary written sources for the existance of Jesus as there is for Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Themistocles, Miltiades, Xerxes os any other great historical figure.

The Bible, whether you believe its claims or not is one of the most important historical documents of the ancient world, having 4 Gospels written about you in the Bible is in itself a massive proof that he existed. Having an independent Roman historian, the greatest historian no less, confirm that by AD 60 Chritisna were already noticeably split and distinct from the rest of the Jewish population, and had already started to be persecuted as a group confims beyond any doubt that the Christian movement must have began immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, it is simply not credible to hold any other opinion.

The names that Mars quoted are just names he grabbed from silly websites that spout false, spurious and outated nonense, like you are doing.

Again, as to Jesus' claims, the miracles, the healings, his death and resurrection. I couldn't care less if you believe any of that or not. I cannot, and have never pretended to be able to provide evidence or proof for that. Believing Jesus to be the Son of God is purely a matter of faith.

I have pointed out though that clearly, the early Christians, his immediate followers, and those they came into contact with and were the first converts, were so convinced of this truth, that they willingly suffered the most horrendous of deaths and tortures for this belief. Does that mean they were right when they believed they saw Jesus raised again, and witnessed his miracles? Not necessarily, but it does clearly show that he managed to convince them, and was therefore a real man.

You are really talking garbage. Look at the examples you gave that you compared to Jesus. Scientology, The Waco seige, let's look at some more Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnessess etc.

I agree with you most of these are based on nonsense. But how many were not founded by anybody? Scientology was the invention of Run HUbbard, The Waco cult, David Koresh. Mormonism Jospeh Smith. Did these people not exist either?

The evidence for the actual existence of an historical Jesus is beyond reasonable doubt. You are simply wrong to believe otherwise.

You know the Mormons live a good life they are actually mostly very good law abiding people.
More than 20 million of them now and they all give a lot more than 1 dollar each per week! You could do alot worse than them, but it is a very big business too. Catholic is much bigger. Imagine that amount of people all tithe around 10 % of their income.
Its astounding.

[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.

[Kev]

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.

Huh? I've repeatedly said that believing the divine and miraculous claims attributed to Christ are a matter of faith.

In this little debate I've stuck purely to factual truths. It is factually innaccurate to claim that there is no evidence that Jesus existed at all and that his story was made up 300 years later.

That is wrong, errant, untrue, false, incorrect etc.

I've demonstrated that both secular historians from Jesus' time and the leading and most informed atheists of today all accept/concede that Jesus was a historical figure.

Whether he did the things or said the things attested of him I cannot, and am not attempting to prove or disprove. I will merely say that clearly enough of his followers were convinced by him that they were willing to sacrifice their own lives for the cause.