Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[Beanz]

Five. Your quote You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when 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.”

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I didn't say that this means the claims about Jesus divinity must be true. Simply that it is absolutely certain that His early followers believed them to be true. They died willingly for their beliefs. No, that doesn't mean they were not wrong about His divinity, but it shows the level of conviction they had, a convciction that is impossible to explain if Jesus didn't even exist at all.

Are you a Christian or not? if you do not believe Jesus rose again you are not a Christian. The fact is, if Jesus followers were disappointed in his being crucified by the Romans it would be entirely believable that they would make up his resurrection years later to inspire there fellow cult members. This would prove that the "Jesus described in the Gospels" was indeed a fabrication and not an historical figure, we know nothing about the Jesus who may have been an historical figure, only Jesus as described in the Gospels.
What we know about Jesus as described in the Gospels may well then all be fictional and I then would have to conclude the Gospels can not be accepted as evidence. With no evidence I do not find my position untenable at all.

[Kev]

Five. Your quote You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when 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.”

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I didn't say that this means the claims about Jesus divinity must be true. Simply that it is absolutely certain that His early followers believed them to be true. They died willingly for their beliefs. No, that doesn't mean they were not wrong about His divinity, but it shows the level of conviction they had, a convciction that is impossible to explain if Jesus didn't even exist at all.

Are you a Christian or not? if you do not believe Jesus rose again you are not a Christian. The fact is, if Jesus followers were disappointed in his being crucified by the Romans it would be entirely believable that they would make up his resurrection years later to inspire there fellow cult members. This would prove that the "Jesus described in the Gospels" was indeed a fabrication and not an historical figure, we know nothing about the Jesus who may have been an historical figure, only Jesus as described in the Gospels.
What we know about Jesus as described in the Gospels may well then all be fictional and I then would have to conclude the Gospels can not be accepted as evidence. With no evidence I do not find my position untenable at all.

I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Do I expect you to believe it? No. Am I trying to present evidence of it to you? No. Is my believe in the truth of the Gospels at all relevant to the question of whether historians and scholars accept that Jesus was a real, living human being who actually walked this earth? No.

Jesus (Note I am not saying Christ) was an historical figure. He really did exist. Does this mean the Gospel's claims about him are true. No, of course not. But they merit attention and study in my opinion. I did pay attention, read the Bible through from Genesis to Revelation and came away believing it to be the truth of man's origins.

Am I going to try and convince you? Not at all, I don't care if you believe it or not.

I have merely demonstrated that yours and Mars Ax position and beliefs about Jesus being a fictional character were wrong.

[Beanz]

Five. Your quote You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when 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.”

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I didn't say that this means the claims about Jesus divinity must be true. Simply that it is absolutely certain that His early followers believed them to be true. They died willingly for their beliefs. No, that doesn't mean they were not wrong about His divinity, but it shows the level of conviction they had, a convciction that is impossible to explain if Jesus didn't even exist at all.

Are you a Christian or not? if you do not believe Jesus rose again you are not a Christian. The fact is, if Jesus followers were disappointed in his being crucified by the Romans it would be entirely believable that they would make up his resurrection years later to inspire there fellow cult members. This would prove that the "Jesus described in the Gospels" was indeed a fabrication and not an historical figure, we know nothing about the Jesus who may have been an historical figure, only Jesus as described in the Gospels.
What we know about Jesus as described in the Gospels may well then all be fictional and I then would have to conclude the Gospels can not be accepted as evidence. With no evidence I do not find my position untenable at all.

I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Do I expect you to believe it? No. Am I trying to present evidence of it to you? No. Is my believe in the truth of the Gospels at all relevant to the question of whether historians and scholars accept that Jesus was a real, living human being who actually walked this earth? No.

Jesus (Note I am not saying Christ) was an historical figure. He really did exist. Does this mean the Gospel's claims about him are true. No, of course not. But they merit attention and study in my opinion. I did pay attention, read the Bible through from Genesis to Revelation and came away believing it to be the truth of man's origins.

Am I going to try and convince you? Not at all, I din't vare if you believe it or not.

I have merely demonstrated that yours and Mars Ax position and beliefs about Jesus being a fictional character were wrong.

Respect for finally admitting your position, and yes it is relevant, just as the fact that i am an atheist will clearly impact upon my reasoning. Your belief in the Gospels is CRUCIAL as they are by far the most comprehensive record of a real living human being called Jesus walking this earth. I do not believe they are an accurate record that can be used as evidence, you obviously do. I respect your faith but there really is very little other secular confirmation of his existence.On this we will have to agree to disagree.

For 15 years I studied the Bible every day and preached the Gospel but than I began to question my beliefs and went and studied Sufism, Judaism, Buddism, Islam and many other faiths attending temples, synagogues, mosques and interfaith conferences, pagan prayer circles and all manner of religious experiences. It was only after all this that I came to a position of atheism. So to be labelled as an ill educated man and of no consequence clearly rankled me, but no way was i going to be the first to lose his cool and give pacfan any satisfaction.

PEACE

[Mars_ax]

Respect for finally admitting your position, and yes it is relevant, just as the fact that i am an atheist will clearly impact upon my reasoning. Your belief in the Gospels is CRUCIAL as they are by far the most comprehensive record of a real living human being called Jesus walking this earth. I do not believe they are an accurate record that can be used as evidence, you obviously do. I respect your faith but there really is very little other secular confirmation of his existence.On this we will have to agree to disagree.

For 15 years I studied the Bible every day and preached the Gospel but than I began to question my beliefs and went and studied Sufism, Judaism, Buddism, Islam and many other faiths attending temples, synagogues, mosques and interfaith conferences, pagan prayer circles and all manner of religious experiences. It was only after all this that I came to a position of atheism. So to be labelled as an ill educated man and of no consequence clearly rankled me, but no way was i going to be the first to lose his cool and give pacfan any satisfaction.

PEACE

I've been a skeptic of god, the bible, jesus, et al, going back to my early teens, skepticism and/or critical thinking are just a big part of my nature. Religions have never seemed to me to be based in reality, and I never could bring myself to believe, what I knew in my heart not to be true.

Fortunately, my parents didn't "raise" me to be a christian, so I missed out on the biblical brainwashing that goes on in a lot of families, and I was given a chance to make up my own mind. The older I've gotten, the more I've been able to appreciate being able to think for myself, it's been a liberating experience.

I may end up going to hell, 'cause I hear that's where atheists go, but i'll have plenty of company/friends there, and besides, heaven is a bit overrated/overhyped.

[Gandalf]

Greenbeanz, you spent all that time preaching and trying to get inside different types of faith....and it took all of that to eventually become an atheist? I find that a little odd. Surely all you ever needed was a little common sense. I don't need to spend years inside a church to know that Christianity and Jesus worship is fundamentally absurd.

Just as you don't need to be an expert in economics to see that many experts talk out of their bottom, the same applies to religion. Most of it is common sense, you can see what is silly without the need to sacrifice already precious years on pointless things.

[VictorCharlie]

Something that hasn't been addressed if all of what Green and Mars say is true why academics as a whole do not share their beliefs? One would also think that after all of these years it wouldn't be hard to find secular evidence of a conscience decision to fabricate the life of Jesus. I mean if true we are talking about possibly the biggest ruse in history. Seems like it would be a hard thing to cover up over the ages.

[Beanz]

Something that hasn't been addressed if all of what Green and Mars say is true why academics as a whole do not share their beliefs? One would also think that after all of these years it wouldn't be hard to find secular evidence of a conscience decision to fabricate the life of Jesus. I mean if true we are talking about possibly the biggest ruse in history. Seems like it would be a hard thing to cover up over the ages.

The fact is there is very little secular evidence FOR the existence of Jesus. The point is most academics do not consider the Bible a reliable source of historical evidence for anything. Even Christians insist that it cannot all be taken literally. It is not a conspiracy theory, it does not require a cover-up to doubt the existence "of the Jesus described in the Gospels". If even one supernatural thing attributed to this Jesus is questionable, which it clearly is from a secular point of view, then the life of Jesus has already begun to be fabricated. Factor into this, the proliferation of messianic figures documented as existing during the same time period and this along with Judeo-Hellenic tradition of employing allegory and it is not difficult for someone without faith to assume that the Jesus figure talked about in the Gospels is a composite, a figurative head of a movement that wished he was the liberator of Isreal, something he did not turn out to be.

[Mars_ax]

Something that hasn't been addressed if all of what Green and Mars say is true why academics as a whole do not share their beliefs? One would also think that after all of these years it wouldn't be hard to find secular evidence of a conscience decision to fabricate the life of Jesus. I mean if true we are talking about possibly the biggest ruse in history. Seems like it would be a hard thing to cover up over the ages.

It's not a 'belief", it's a lack of any belief, and Frankly I couldn't give a fuck less what most "academics" want to 'believe', they have their 'opinion' I have mine. I'm not the least bit swayed by argumentum ad populum and/or any argument from numbers.

It doesn't seem odd to me at all that the majority of biblical historians/scholars, et al, buy the historicity of Jesus, most are theists with a vested interest. It's also worth pointing out that the historicity of Jesus wasn't really ever challenged until more recent times.

Like it or not, from a secular historical point of view, the Jesus character in the gospels is a construct/fabrication, written by unknown authors, 40 to 300 after the fact. Did you know for example that there's not a single physical description of the alleged "Jesus" in the entire New Testament? Sounds like a fictional character to me, but 'believe' whatever you want.

[Beanz]

Greenbeanz, you spent all that time preaching and trying to get inside different types of faith....and it took all of that to eventually become an atheist? I find that a little odd. Surely all you ever needed was a little common sense. I don't need to spend years inside a church to know that Christianity and Jesus worship is fundamentally absurd.

Just as you don't need to be an expert in economics to see that many experts talk out of their bottom, the same applies to religion. Most of it is common sense, you can see what is silly without the need to sacrifice already precious years on pointless things.

Miles you were fortunate to have not been brainwashed as a child, for every second of every minute of every day. When i finally got the courage to question those who brainwashed me I had to take the consequences which meant for me literally finding myself alone in the world. Part of my learning to function as a reasoning human being meant exploring other faiths and for this I make no apology. You may find it a little odd but fear overrides common sense when you believe the Devil is real, and the result of questioning your faith is being cast off and ignored by every family member and friend/acquaintance you have.

It is not only my experience that makes a nonsense out of religious apologists who think that religion is benign. I find Bilbo's assertion that reading Richard Dawkins turned him into a Christian, much odder.