Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[Beanz]

Bilbo you have made it clear in the original "Do you ever doubt God's Existence thread?"exactly where you stand.

"I never doubt his existence at all.I used to be an atheist until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. They converted me to Christianity and now I cannot comprehend how people cannot believe

The universe is ordered and structured. Outside of the philosophical beliefs of evolutionary humanism random chance and organisation of knowledge and material has never been observed to occur.

That a creation needs a creator is the conclusion of simple but cast iron logic that has never been contradicted in the history of humankind.

Those arguing for a universe from nothing believe in something that for which there has never been a shred of evidence, whereas those who believe a complicated design needs an intelligent designer can look to every single structure ever made."

Therefore you can not pretend that you are referring to an historical Jesus, you are speaking about the exact same, Jesus as described in the Gospels, that Mars , Myself and many other open minded, logical, questioning people have suggested may well be an amalgam, a composite of various messianic like figures claiming divinity at the time.

Your belief that
"The Bible, whether you believe its claims or not is one of the most important historical documents of the ancient world" is frankly just not true it has been proved to be wildly inaccurate again and again, even in ascertaining the belief system of the people it refers to as Israelites. Your use of phrases like "beyond any doubt"reveal you arrogance and inability to accept reason, however well made the argument. Your belligerence reveals your ignorance.

Your moving from a position of atheism to that of a believer is a clear example of you eschewing logic in favour of faith, a position you are more than entitled to take. The issue I have with you, is your assumption that i dismiss your beliefs "with a wave of the hand" because it suits me emotionally to do so. I arrived at the place I am now, both intellectually and philosophically, after many years of fervent searching and belief, exploring many faiths and researching their historical development. It has been a painful journey that has cost me massively in both emotional and physical sacrifices, and so I do not take kindly to you assertions of ignorance and retardation. You say

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

and then go on to use the Bible like it is an authentic Historical document. You are clearly speaking from a point of extreme prejudice, and have no idea how to construct a rational argument. It is becoming increasingly futile to try and have a conversation with someone putting their fingers in their ears, and going "la la la". So I give up, Jesus Christ the divine, as described in the Gospels was obviously a real historic figure, along with his virgin birth, resurrection to heaven and many miracles.

[Kev]

Bilbo you have made it clear in the original "Do you ever doubt God's Existence thread?"exactly where you stand.

"I never doubt his existence at all.I used to be an atheist until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. They converted me to Christianity and now I cannot comprehend how people cannot believe

The universe is ordered and structured. Outside of the philosophical beliefs of evolutionary humanism random chance and organisation of knowledge and material has never been observed to occur.

That a creation needs a creator is the conclusion of simple but cast iron logic that has never been contradicted in the history of humankind.

Those arguing for a universe from nothing believe in something that for which there has never been a shred of evidence, whereas those who believe a complicated design needs an intelligent designer can look to every single structure ever made."

Therefore you can not pretend that you are referring to an historical Jesus, you are speaking about the exact same, Jesus as described in the Gospels, that Mars , Myself and many other open minded, logical, questioning people have suggested may well be an amalgam, a composite of various messianic like figures claiming divinity at the time.

Your belief that
"The Bible, whether you believe its claims or not is one of the most important historical documents of the ancient world" is frankly just not true it has been proved to be wildly inaccurate again and again, even in ascertaining the belief system of the people it refers to as Israelites. Your use of phrases like "beyond any doubt"reveal you arrogance and inability to accept reason, however well made the argument. Your belligerence reveals your ignorance.

Your moving from a position of atheism to that of a believer is a clear example of you eschewing logic in favour of faith, a position you are more than entitled to take. The issue I have with you, is your assumption that i dismiss your beliefs "with a wave of the hand" because it suits me emotionally to do so. I arrived at the place I am now, both intellectually and philosophically, after many years of fervent searching and belief, exploring many faiths and researching their historical development. It has been a painful journey that has cost me massively in both emotional and physical sacrifices, and so I do not take kindly to you assertions of ignorance and retardation. You say

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

and then go on to use the Bible like it is an authentic Historical document. You are clearly speaking from a point of extreme prejudice, and have no idea how to construct a rational argument. It is becoming increasingly futile to try and have a conversation with someone putting their fingers in their ears, and going "la la la". So I give up, Jesus Christ the divine, as described in the Gospels was obviously a real historic figure, along with his virgin birth, resurrection to heaven and many miracles.

Again you are going off on a tangent, resurrecting old posts and trying to respond and challenge claims that I never made to Mars Ax.

I responded specifically to Mars' claim that Jesus never existed and was made up 300 years after the events.

That is demonstrably false. Jesus was a real historical person. He actually lived.

Questions regarding his divinity, the miracles, virgin birth and resurrection will always remain matters of faith. I am not commenting on them at all here, I'm sticking entirely to the topic at hand, that Jesus was a real historical figure and that nobody seriously disputes this.

Watch this video extract with Richard Dawkins debating a Christian. Even Dawkins, the most militant and well informed atheist on the planet concedes that Jesus existed. Watch the clip.

He says 'If I have alluded to scholars claiming that Jesus never existed I take that back, he existed'.

You are simply wrong to claim otherwise. It isn't arrogance any more than stating that Julius Ceasar was real. He really lived, nobody challenges this, it is universally accepted.

Regarding the accuracry and truth of the Gospels I am making no claims whatsoever, believe or not believe makes no difference to me.

Just accept that your claim/belief that he was an invented character who never existed at all is demonstrably untrue.

If that encourages to reevalute the other claims regarding his life and divinity, then great, if it doesn't that's fine too.

[VictorCharlie]

I'm curious about some of the time lines being used. My understanding is that Jesus was supposed to have been killed around 31 AD and that the first documents that now make up the new testament were written between 35 AD and 97 AD. I'm not talking about when the Bible was put together or canonizing but when the disciples either actually wrote or had a scribe write the original document/letter that in some form made it into what we now call the New Testament. Are these dates contested and/or am I completely off on my own time line?

[Kev]

I'm curious about some of the time lines being used. My understanding is that Jesus was supposed to have been killed around 31 AD and that the first documents that now make up the new testament were written between 35 AD and 97 AD. I'm not talking about when the Bible was put together or canonizing but when the disciples either actually wrote or had a scribe write the original document/letter that in some form made it into what we now call the New Testament. Are these dates contested and/or am I completely off on my own time line?

They are not seriously contested.

Most scholars and historians accept that the Gospels were written well before 100AD and in most cases well before 70 AD.

In 70 AD the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple.

None of the Gospels or the book of Acts record this hugely important event indicating that they were clearly written before this pivotal event.

The earliest quote from a Gospel comes from Ignatius in 115AD where he quotes Matthew, proving beyond doubt that not only were the Gospels written and widely circulated by this time but were also accepted as authorative and used in teaching etc. Clearly they were written and in widespread use many years before this so must have been written well before the end of the first century.

Most scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and give a likely date of 55AD, so 20 years after the crucifixion.

Mars Ax and Greenbeanz are quite frankly making stuff up. That's why running to a website and quoting random pages is never a good idea. Lots of people talk crap on the internet.

[Mars_ax]

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

and then go on to use the Bible like it is an authentic Historical document. You are clearly speaking from a point of extreme prejudice, and have no idea how to construct a rational argument. It is becoming increasingly futile to try and have a conversation with someone putting their fingers in their ears, and going "la la la". So I give up, Jesus Christ the divine, as described in the Gospels was obviously a real historic figure, along with his virgin birth, resurrection to heaven and many miracles.

You don't get anywhere trying to debate or reason with condescending, fundamentalist christian bigots like Bilbo, they're absolutists who've already bought it all, hook, line and sinker.

Whether a man named Jesus actually existed or not, can't be proven one way or the other. One thing that's certain, there's a total lack of secular "historical" evidence confirming what was written about him in the gospels. Because of this, even if you removed the supernatual events, and divinity et al, from the New Testament, it would still have to be considered a fabrication and/or work of fiction.

That's not to say that the gospels aren't a marvelous, educational, collection of religious literature. (but terminally boring)

cheers Beanz, BTW, good job of owning Bilbo.

[Kev]

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

and then go on to use the Bible like it is an authentic Historical document. You are clearly speaking from a point of extreme prejudice, and have no idea how to construct a rational argument. It is becoming increasingly futile to try and have a conversation with someone putting their fingers in their ears, and going "la la la". So I give up, Jesus Christ the divine, as described in the Gospels was obviously a real historic figure, along with his virgin birth, resurrection to heaven and many miracles.

You don't get anywhere trying to debate or reason with condescending, fundamentalist christian bigots like Bilbo, they're absolutists who've already bought it all, hook, line and sinker.

Whether a man named Jesus actually existed or not, can't be proven one way or the other. One thing that's certain, there's a total lack of secular "historical" evidence confirming what was written about him in the gospels. Because of this, even if you removed the supernatual events, and divinity et al, from the New Testament, it would still have to be considered a fabrication and/or work of fiction.

That's not to say that the gospels aren't a marvelous, educational, collection of religious literature. (but terminally boring)

cheers Beanz, BTW, good job of owning Bilbo.

Whether a man named Jesus actually existed or not, can't be proven one way or the other.

Yes, it can. He existed. There is not a single active scholar in the world who seriously contests this. Please point me to any mainstream history book published in the last 100 years that says he was a made up, fictional character.

One thing that's certain, there's a total lack of secular "historical" evidence confirming what was written about him in the gospels.

Huh? You want 'secular' evidence confirming that he healed the sick, walked on water, rasied people from the dead and was the Son of God? I'll leave you to work out the irony of this.

cheers Beanz, BTW, good job of owning Bilbo.

haha, the only thing you were correct about is that I am condescending.