Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[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'

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Andre]

I love God and all people too, that goes beyond belief and faith.
Ive seen demonic spirits leave people twisted and cursing to be at peace and they visually change in appearance. I have seen other miracle healings occur and I haven't been in a church or read the bible in any large degree for maybe 20 years aside from a couple of funerals. From my point of view God is bigger than any man made religion.
God is not an old man with white hair in a clouded paradise.That is bullshit and that is where misinterpretation continues to be birthed. God is just a man made word for the love and light energies that separated and run through every atom in every Universe.Here on Earth in 3d and below us in 2d we have light being crushed into material. Some can only see materially and denounce the infinate behind it and so are blind to the infinite in themselves and they call it being smart ,call it intelligence.
Even physics proves them wrong on some points regarding electrons that move from one dimension to the next and back here again,the fact that observation changes outcome and yet they still call some unseen energy as fake.

[Kev]

I love God and all people too, that goes beyond belief and faith.
Ive seen demonic spirits leave people twisted and cursing to be at peace and they visually change in appearance. I have seen other miracle healings occur and I haven't been in a church or read the bible in any large degree for maybe 20 years aside from a couple of funerals. From my point of view God is bigger than any man made religion.
God is not an old man with white hair in a clouded paradise.That is bullshit and that is where misinterpretation continues to be birthed. God is just a man made word for the love and light energies that separated and run through every atom in every Universe.Here on Earth in 3d and below us in 2d we have light being crushed into material. Some can only see materially and denounce the infinate behind it and so are blind to the infinite in themselves and they call it being smart ,call it intelligence.
Even physics proves them wrong on some points regarding electrons that move from one dimension to the next and back here again,the fact that observation changes outcome and yet they still call some unseen energy as fake.

I don't really disagree with any of that Andre.

Nobody can truly understand God, and He certainly isn't a man on a cloud. It truly baffles my mind to wonder what He is, where He is etc. It's so beyond our finite brains to understand.

Oh also, regarding Mormons, I agree with you there too. I have a good femal American friend who is a Mormon and who got her degree from Brigham University. Nice girl.

[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.

[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.