Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[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.

[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.

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.

Green once again if your position is so well founded then why isn't it taken as fact by most of academia? If you want to dismiss Dawkins as just one guy then fine but the bulk of historians and intellectuals also don't seem to agree with you. I'm not sure what Christian denominations you have interacted with on a daily basis but there is a fair amount that do take the Bible as the literal word of god. Lastly while it may not be difficult for a person w/o faith (whatever that means) to deny a man named Jesus walked the Earth sometime between 6 BC and 31 AD, to get to the point that Christianity is today one of two things had to have happened.

1. Some guy with a funny looking hat turned to a bunch of other guys with funny looking hats and said " Ok so let me get this straight, not only are we going to found our religion on miracles that didn't happen but the guy we said did these things is actually just a fictional character we made up for PR purposes? Ok sounds good to me."

2. Or a group of people took stories and myths they had heard about miracles regarding various messianic prophets and unintentionally created a persona that ultimately led to one of the 3 dominate religions of the world.

One would think that option 1 would have unraveled by now and number 2 seems about as possible as turning water into wine. You seem to dedicate a lot of time to discrediting the sources that state Jesus's existence (Bible, Tacitus etc) yet haven't provided a hypothesis and/or evidence for how the majority of the world past and present accept that he at the very least existed.

[Kev]

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.

Again you are simply wrong. The Bible has proven itself an uncannily accurate source over and over again, and the there is more written material about Jesus than other ancient historical figure.

You seem to get confused about your quest for secular information. We have already proven he existed, Tacitus said so, and whether you think so or not Tacitus is the most important Roman historian and source of most of our information regarding the Roman world.

So we know he was historical.

What you are asking for is secular confirmation of the miraculous claims regarding Jesus, which is simply apalling logic, as as soon as somebody reports miraculous claims about Jesus they cease to be secular.

Also, you seem confused as to what the BIble actually is. It's not, as you seem to believe, one big book, rather it is a collection of 66 seperate works, written more than 1000 years apart, by multiple authors, in different counties and in different languages.

The New Testament alone has 9 seperate authors, all of the agreeing on the nature and claims of Jesus as Christ.

There are nine seperate works recording Jesus as the Son of God, not just one Bible as you seem to understand it. That is more written material than any other historical figure of that time period. Then we have the apocraphyal gospels and other writings as well. His historicity is attested beyond doubt, the problem for you, is that all of these dozens of scrolls and manuscripts present him as a Messiah, and are thus self falsifying for you.

But it remains impossible to provide evidence to convince you of an historical Jesus because, by definition, once someone reports him as such, to you they cease to be secular and thus are just speaking religious nonsense.

Even more strange is your denial of even the leading atheist in the world, who admits Jesus actually lived. You say you are not a follower of Dawkins as if that means your opinion counts equally with his.

It does not. Dawkins has written books and presented television series attacking the Christian faith, he is familiar with all the evidence against the BIBle and against Jesus. If he is forced to concede that Jesus was real then that is because the evidence of that is overwhelming.

Seriously, what knowledge of this subject do you suppose you have that Richard Dawkins wasn't aware of?

Finally, in that clip of Dawkins admission you then went on to say the man he was debating was an idiot talking nonsense, again showing you simply aren't understanding the nature of the problem.

What the Irish priest was saying was damning. He got Dawkins to admit that Jesus was a real man. He then confornted Dawkins with the claims that Jesus made about Himself. He claimed to be the Logos, God incarnate. He was forcing Dawkins to explain away the paradox of Jesus being real, and universally regarded as the wisest man who ever lived, and a force for good in the world, with the fact that He claimed to be God made manifest.

It's incredibly hard to really read the gospels, meditate on the words of Jesus, his wisdom and understanding of humanity, and not be moved by it. He was an amazing man, which is why he is revered in almost all faiths and cultures.

To dismiss him as a fictional character, although demonstrably false is so appealing to people because once they concede he was real, they are confronted with the claims He made about Himself. And that is uncomfortable.

[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.

Again you are simply wrong. The Bible has proven itself an uncannily accurate source over and over again, and the there is more written material about Jesus than other ancient historical figure.

You seem to get confused about your quest for secular information. We have already proven he existed, Tacitus said so, and whether you think so or not Tacitus is the most important Roman historian and source of most of our information regarding the Roman world.

So we know he was historical.

What you are asking for is secular confirmation of the miraculous claims regarding Jesus, which is simply apalling logic, as as soon as somebody reports miraculous claims about Jesus they cease to be secular.

Also, you seem confused as to what the BIble actually is. It's not, as you seem to believe, one big book, rather it is a collection of 66 seperate works, written more than 1000 years apart, by multiple authors, in different counties and in different languages.

The New Testament alone has 9 seperate authors, all of the agreeing on the nature and claims of Jesus as Christ.

There are nine seperate works recording Jesus as the Son of God, not just one Bible as you seem to understand it. That is more written material than any other historical figure of that time period. Then we have the apocraphyal gospels and other writings as well. His historicity is attested beyond doubt, the problem for you, is that all of these dozens of scrolls and manuscripts present him as a Messiah, and are thus self falsifying for you.

But it remains impossible to provide evidence to convince you of an historical Jesus because, by definition, once someone reports him as such, to you they cease to be secular and thus are just speaking religious nonsense.

Even more strange is your denial of even the leading atheist in the world, who admits Jesus actually lived. You say you are not a follower of Dawkins as if that means your opinion counts equally with his.

It does not. Dawkins has written books and presented television series attacking the Christian faith, he is familiar with all the evidence against the BIBle and against Jesus. If he is forced to concede that Jesus was real then that is because the evidence of that is overwhelming.

Seriously, what knowledge of this subject do you suppose you have that Richard Dawkins wasn't aware of?

Finally, in that clip of Dawkins admission you then went on to say the man he was debating was an idiot talking nonsense, again showing you simply aren't understanding the nature of the problem.

What the Irish priest was saying was damning. He got Dawkins to admit that Jesus was a real man. He then confornted Dawkins with the claims that Jesus made about Himself. He claimed to be the Logos, God incarnate. He was forcing Dawkins to explain away the paradox of Jesus being real, and universally regarded as the wisest man who ever lived, and a force for good in the world, with the fact that He claimed to be God made manifest.

It's incredibly hard to really read the gospels, meditate on the words of Jesus, his wisdom and understanding of humanity, and not be moved by it. He was an amazing man, which is why he is revered in almost all faiths and cultures.

To dismiss him as a fictional character, although demonstrably false is so appealing to people because once they concede he was real, they are confronted with the claims He made about Himself. And that is uncomfortable.

"Again you are simply wrong" what kind of argument is that?!

Tacitus wasn't a contemporary source. He wrote his 'Histories' between 100 and 110 CE

Dawkins is a biologist, not an ancient historian. Of course my opinion counts equally with his, he is a scientist and as such, like myself will always entertain the possibility he may be wrong, something you will never do. The argument was NEVER , EVER, EVER about just somebody called Jesus. It was about "the Jesus as described in the Gospels" do you really think Dawkins author of "The God Delusion" could possibly think such a man existed?In it Richard Dawkins writes that while Jesus probably existed, it is "possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all."

Here is a list of Historians that lived during the alledged time of Jesus.

Aulus Perseus Columelia Dio Chrysostom Justus of Tiberius Livy Lucanus Lucius Florus Petronius Phaedrus Philo Judaeus Phlegon Pliny The Elder Plutarch Pomponius Mela Rufus Curtius Quintillian Quintus Curtius Seneca Silius Italicus Statius Caelicius Theon of Smyrna Valerius Fiaccus Valerius Maximus

How many of these well known historians who lived during Jesus' assumed life time, even mention Jesus'? Not a single one.

Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberia were both respected, diligent scholars. They both actually lived and wrote in the time in which the Jesus character was supposed to have lived, performed his miracles and died.

In all their known writings, neither mentions a single word about a character called Jesus.

Of course i know what the Bible is i never said it was just one book what you are doing know is putting words in peoples mouths to make yourself seem superior. What part of studying the Bible every day do you not understand. That means both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, all 66 rambling books with Greek interlinear and English translations. I have not assumed your ignorance, and yet again and again you ascribe arrogant ill informed opinions of my education to prove what exactly?

The Irish priest was not damning he was a fool. The translation of Logos has long been debated and can mean anything from "word" to "a God", and Jesus is not regarded as the wisest man who ever lived, only by Christians, even Jesus "as described in the Gospels" never claimed to be God manifest, their is no paradox. You are seriously suggesting that Richard Dawkins ( who apparently is the authority on the historicity of Jesus, despite being a Biologist, and well known atheist, not a historian) by saying that Jesus was a real man, would then have to accept That Jesus is God manifest. The paradox is why you as a Christian ,would want to keep your own belief out of a discussion about Jesus.

You obviously have little regard for your own teachers message, if you can only use it to look down your nose at other people. If you were capable of reason you would not have a problem understanding that not everyone shares your beliefs. Finally should any doubt arise I will make it crystal clear

I do not believe the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels existed. You may not agree but I find it even more preposterous to believe that Jesus, who you say was God manifest, implanted himself into a virgin, spent a lifetime conducting miracles, and then resurrected himself after dying for the sins of every man. A Jesus who merely went about preaching and did nothing miraculous but was executed by the Romans is not described in the Gospels or any other historical account until Tacitus, between 100 and 110 CE and even then he bears little relation to the Jesus described in the Gospels.

[Kev]

I don't really look down my nose at you Greenbeanz. I just love a good debate, replete with insults and witty putdowns. Miles and I have forged a friendship over the years doing precisely that. That weird cunt is along with CFH my fave person on here, even despite him being ideologically opposed to me on every level.

[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.

[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.

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.

Considering that most secular historians do not share this opinion it is hardly as cut and dry as you state it. I find the topic interesting but if your answer to why a minority opinion is the actual truth is simply to dismiss what historians for ages have stated as fact; that Jesus was an actual person (all divinity issues aside) and w/o providing evidence of a plausible explanation how generations of historians have been duped then its kind of hard to see your stance being valid. I know I know you don't give a fuck what I or anyone else thinks but personally when I find myself holding a belief that is contrary to what a large majority believes I usually take a moment to reassess. Like I said earlier in this thread I am not a Christian and do not care one way or the other I just found the assertion interesting and was hoping for a more substantive argument I suppose.

[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.

Considering that most secular historians do not share this opinion it is hardly as cut and dry as you state it. I find the topic interesting but if your answer to why a minority opinion is the actual truth is simply to dismiss what historians for ages have stated as fact; that Jesus was an actual person (all divinity issues aside) and w/o providing evidence of a plausible explanation how generations of historians have been duped then its kind of hard to see your stance being valid. I know I know you don't give a fuck what I or anyone else thinks but personally when I find myself holding a belief that is contrary to what a large majority believes I usually take a moment to reassess. Like I said earlier in this thread I am not a Christian and do not care one way or the other I just found the assertion interesting and was hoping for a more substantive argument I suppose.

It's not up to me to provide explanations or evidence to the contrary as to why the majority historians believe the way they do. Here again, you're using argumentum ad populum, and here again, I couldn't give a fuck less what they believe.

I've given about as good of an explanation of my position as I care to give, my argument is, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels is a fabrication, not backed by any secular historical evidence. From my perspective, the fictive supernatural/divinity aspects, as well as the immaculate birth, alleged resurrection, et al, turn the New Testament into a fabricated fairytale. What's so hard to understand about that? The "son of god? What a crock of shit.

[VictorCharlie]

Well ok then. I'd say it is up to you to support an argument when just about everyone else disagrees with you but if you said your peace no worries. I'll say as someone that was interested in your perspective and open minded on the subject your arguments on this thread are not particularly convincing. But I forget you don't "give a fuck" what anyone else thinks. I apologize I don't know the latin term for that type of argument.

[Kev]

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.

Considering that most secular historians do not share this opinion it is hardly as cut and dry as you state it. I find the topic interesting but if your answer to why a minority opinion is the actual truth is simply to dismiss what historians for ages have stated as fact; that Jesus was an actual person (all divinity issues aside) and w/o providing evidence of a plausible explanation how generations of historians have been duped then its kind of hard to see your stance being valid. I know I know you don't give a fuck what I or anyone else thinks but personally when I find myself holding a belief that is contrary to what a large majority believes I usually take a moment to reassess. Like I said earlier in this thread I am not a Christian and do not care one way or the other I just found the assertion interesting and was hoping for a more substantive argument I suppose.

It's not up to me to provide explanations or evidence to the contrary as to why the majority historians believe the way they do. Here again, you're using argumentum ad populum, and here again, I couldn't give a fuck less what they believe.

I've given about as good of an explanation of my position as I care to give, my argument is, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels is a fabrication, not backed by any secular historical evidence. From my perspective, the fictive supernatural/divinity aspects, as well as the immaculate birth, alleged resurrection, et al, turn the New Testament into a fabricated fairytale. What's so hard to understand about that? The "son of god? What a crock of shit.

I think I owe Greenbeanz an apology. I dismissed him as an idiot but its clear I underestimated what true idiocy was. Your logic is on some levels profound. You seem to really believe that your opinion, based soley on your own personal feelings is not only valid but final. You believe that all historians who believe Jesus existed (which is every modern historian btw) is a theist, and a Christian as well I presume.

The biggest irony, and one totally lost on you is that your faith, for that is what it is, is anti logical and irrational. You reject Christianity because you claim to believe in reason, but when confronted with facts, you simply dismiss them and say you don't need to justify why you believe what you believe, and the fact that your beliefs are disproven is irrelevant, you will believe them anyway and your belief i is all that matters. You are a completely irrational human being.

And a moron.