atheist, agnostic or religious?

Bow down before the Unbelievers! We demand that you take responsibility for your own actions!

[QUOTE="jointed"]

"Exaplined to you" Hah, as if I need an explanation.

I've already destroyed his silly anologies. You can't go by statements that was written almost 70 years AFTER the death of him, it's ridiculous. And NO, the same logic can not be applied to Alexander the Great since there's lots of writings about him from around the time he lived, and there's also a huge amount of evidence for his reign of power.

I fail to understand why you're trying to defend this logic so desperately, can't you see the error of your ways? 

AirGuitarist87

I'm not sure why you're so determined to try and prove Jesus didn't exist, but oh well.

Firstly, saying you've won an argument doesn't make it so. Your anology about your granddad's friend Tom lifting houses - if your granddad did indeed had a friend called Tom, then there's no denying he existed. Historians aren't saying Jesus did half the stuff the Bible claims, but there is evidence he existed. As I've already said, pinpointing evidence is more hassle then it's worth - if you want to disbelieve Jesus never entered this world, fine by me.

And I'm hardly desperate. Like I said, I'm not even Christian. :lol: Finding evidence that says "this is proof Jesus existed" is difficult because most people believe it's not something worth arguing against, like trying to prove Lizard People not existing.

It's impossible to prove that he didn't exist, and that's not at all what I'm trying to do. This whole discussion began when you stated that he did, in fact, exist...the only thing I've done is to demand proper evidence. NOTHING more. But you keep on spouting the same crap over and over again, "there's tons of evidence but it's hard to find!". 

I've only got one advice for you, if you make a claim like that you should be prepared to back it up with proper arguments and evidence. And your last sentence just shows how inherently flawed your whole perception of this is.

Good morning Jointed, or well, good evening since you're posting in Britain. This post and all your posts really have some serious problems with them. Now since these problems are mainly rooted in ignorance, I think I can help you to cure your own ignorance by prescribing a reading list (its sort of long, but I dont think you will have any trouble navigating through these books):

1: The Historical Reliability of hte Gospels, 2nd edition, written by Craig Blomberg
2: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by Richard Bauckham
3: The Jesus Legend, by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory Boyd.

Now if you are really interested I would also recommend
The Gospels for All Christians, Edited by Richard Bauckham and Reinventing Jesus, By J. Ed Komoszewski, Daniel B. Wallace, and M. James Sawyer.

This whole discussion began when you stated that he did, in fact, exist...the only thing I've done is to demand proper evidence. NOTHING more. jointed

well I'm sure that hte person to whom you are replying was taught by even liberal teachers that the existence of Jesus as bona-fied historical fact, but we can hardly hold that against him. There is quite a large body of evidence that Jesus existed, and if Bauckham's thesis offered in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is correct (and I believe it is, he has argued rather cogently in favor of it), then the Gospels would be chuck-full of contemporary evidence that Jesus existed, died on a cross, was buried in a tomb, the discovery of that tomb, and his rising from the dead.

But you keep on spouting the same crap over and over again, "there's tons of evidence but it's hard to find!".jointed

I have not scanned through this thread, but that's hardly unbelievable that someone ignorant of the rather wide body of evidence that Jesus existed would resort to such rhetoric.

I've only got one advice for you, if you make a claim like that you should be prepared to back it up with proper arguments and evidence. And your last sentence just shows how inherently flawed your whole perception of this is.

jointed

I'm an atheist by most standards -- I do not believe in the god posed by religion, as all require one to worship that god.  I do believe in the possibility of a higher being (call it a god, if you will), much the same way that we consider ourselves higher beings than bacteria.

But, looking at human history (and the fact that we are merely a speck of dust on a universal timeline), I understand the insignificance of monotheistic religions and the idea that today's religions will one day be a thing of the past, just as pagan rituals and polytheistic religions tend to be looked poorly upon by today's standards. 

"Exaplined to you" Hah, as if I need an explanation.

I've already destroyed his silly anologies. You can't go by statements that was written almost 70 years AFTER the death of him, it's ridiculous. And NO, the same logic can not be applied to Alexander the Great since there's lots of writings about him from around the time he lived, and there's also a huge amount of evidence for his reign of power.

I fail to understand why you're trying to defend this logic so desperately, can't you see the error of your ways?

jointed

I've only got one advice for you, if you make a claim like that you should be prepared to back it up with proper arguments and evidence. And your last sentence just shows how inherently flawed your whole perception of this is.

jointed

Teh internetz...serious business!

Look, there is evidence, it exists. But the internet is so vast and saturated it makes things difficult. I had the same issue when looking for studies saying intelligence can be increased, it comes up with hundreds of "IQ Increasing" courses you pay for. I'll give you an example - try to find out who these two are called and what show they're off.

Agnostic. That way I don't have to spend any effort justifying my beliefs or lack of beliefs - I can simply sit on the fence and shrug.

Indifference rules.

im atheist. i dont belive in a god. niether do i belive in santa claws, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, batman or any else made up by mandoobie1975

[QUOTE="doobie1975"]im atheist. i dont belive in a god. niether do i belive in santa claws, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, batman or any else made up by manapologist101

There are quite a few notable similarities between those who believe in God (as the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran explain him) and those who believe in Santa Clause.

[QUOTE="doobie1975"]im atheist. i dont belive in a god. niether do i belive in santa claws, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, batman or any else made up by manapologist101

Well they are all from the magical realm of Fairyland, so I say why not. ;)

[QUOTE="apologist101"][QUOTE="doobie1975"]im atheist. i dont belive in a god. niether do i belive in santa claws, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, batman or any else made up by manmercypoo

There are quite a few notable similarities between those who believe in God (as the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran explain him) and those who believe in Santa Clause.

[QUOTE="apologist101"][QUOTE="doobie1975"]im atheist. i dont belive in a god. niether do i belive in santa claws, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, batman or any else made up by manRikardur

Well they are all from the magical realm of Fairyland, so I say why not. ;)

Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy are children's stories. God is a transcendent creator of the universe. The existence of God has been in debate for thousands of years, even before Christ, people debated whether God exists. The existence of God is an extremely heavy question in terms of morality, epistemology, and existentialism.

[QUOTE="mercypoo"]

[QUOTE="apologist101"] please do not fall for that trick of equating the importance of the question of God to the existence of santa, easter bunny, or the tooth fairy. apologist101

There are quite a few notable similarities between those who believe in God (as the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran explain him) and those who believe in Santa Clause.

They are all made up and have no scientific proof of their existance? I dont know.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

"Exaplined to you" Hah, as if I need an explanation.

I've already destroyed his silly anologies. You can't go by statements that was written almost 70 years AFTER the death of him, it's ridiculous. And NO, the same logic can not be applied to Alexander the Great since there's lots of writings about him from around the time he lived, and there's also a huge amount of evidence for his reign of power.

I fail to understand why you're trying to defend this logic so desperately, can't you see the error of your ways?

 

apologist101

BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_of_Alexander.JPG

They're all made up? Rikusaki

how is the existence of a transcendent, conscious cause of the universe "made up"?

and have no scientific proof of their existance? Rikusaki

lots of things dont have scientific proof for their existence, like the existence of truth, the existence of ethics, or the existence of the external world.

I dont know.

Rikusaki

I support Neopaganism.

[QUOTE="apologist101"][QUOTE="jointed"]

"Exaplined to you" Hah, as if I need an explanation.

I've already destroyed his silly anologies. You can't go by statements that was written almost 70 years AFTER the death of him, it's ridiculous. And NO, the same logic can not be applied to Alexander the Great since there's lots of writings about him from around the time he lived, and there's also a huge amount of evidence for his reign of power.

I fail to understand why you're trying to defend this logic so desperately, can't you see the error of your ways?

jointed

BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_of_Alexander.JPG

yup, that's bona-fied proof that AtG existed right there and managed to conquer persia :roll:

[QUOTE="mercypoo"]

[QUOTE="apologist101"] please do not fall for that trick of equating the importance of the question of God to the existence of santa, easter bunny, or the tooth fairy. apologist101

There are quite a few notable similarities between those who believe in God (as the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran explain him) and those who believe in Santa Clause.

Children tend to follow the idea of religion based upon what they are told at a young age.  As are those who believe in Santa Clause.

Both are likely to believe in unruly concepts.  Santa knows what you're doing, when you've been bad or good, and will make his judgement based upon how you act.  God knows what you're doing, when you've been bad or good, and will make his judgement based upon how you act. (presents/heaven vs. coal/hell).

These outlandish concepts are backed by delusional explanation.  Santa can fit down the chimney, see what you're doing and fly through the air because of magic.  God can do what he does because he is all-powerful.

Santa has elves.  God has angels.

Santa lives at the north pole, and you will never see him.  God lives in the heavens, and you will never see him.

The main difference between these groups of people; when children find their parents putting presents under the tree, they realize just how outlandish the claim of Santa Clause actually is.  When presented with the idea that the concept of God is outlandish (through various ways), children (regardless of age) continue to contribute delusional reasoning to "prove" god's existence to themselves.

It's as though, when faced with the concept of Mommy putting the presents under the tree, one simply deduced that Santa must have given the presents to mommy (or perhaps the store from which mommy bought them).

And, just like Santa, one becomes wiser once they understand that, perhaps, mommy and daddy weren't telling the truth about God. 

[QUOTE="Rikardur"]

[QUOTE="apologist101"] please do not fall for that trick of equating the importance of the question of God to the existence of santa, easter bunny, or the tooth fairy. apologist101

Well they are all from the magical realm of Fairyland, so I say why not. ;)

Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy are children's stories. God is a transcendent creator of the universe. The existence of God has been in debate for thousands of years, even before Christ, people debated whether God exists. The existence of God is an extremely heavy question in terms of morality, epistemology, and existentialism.

Oh come on, cheer up a bit. How do you get along being oh so serious all the time. :P

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="apologist101"] Jointed, the earliest historian to write much substance about Alexander the Great was Diodorus, and he lived hundreds of years after Alexander the Great. Our main source on the life of Alexander the Great is Plutarch, he of course lived 400 years after Alexander the Great. apologist101

BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_of_Alexander.JPG

yup, that's bona-fied proof that AtG existed right there and managed to conquer persia :roll:

:lol: How desperate are you?

You've been proven wrong. Next.

Good Lord this was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I was reading my copy of The New Testament and the People of God and REALLY wanted to finish another 10 pages, but this was just too good.

uh huh, so one concept is absurd, the other is what again?

[QUOTE="mercypoo"]Santa lives at the north pole, and you will never see him. God lives in the heavens, and you will never see him.mercypoo

nope, thing is everyone will see God on the day of judgement.

The main difference between these groups of people; when children find their parents putting presents under the tree, they realize just how outlandish the claim of Santa Clause actually is. When presented with the idea that the concept of God is outlandish (through various ways), children (regardless of age) continue to contribute delusional reasoning to "prove" god's existence to themselves.mercypoo

I would LOVE to see how the concept of God is "outlandish".

It's as though, when faced with the concept of Mommy putting the presents under the tree, one simply deduced that Santa must have given the presents to mommy (or perhaps the store from which mommy bought them).

And, just like Santa, one becomes wiser once they understand that, perhaps, mommy and daddy weren't telling the truth about God.

mercypoo

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="apologist101"] from what I've been able to gather it speaks of a king who died.

 

yup, that's bona-fied proof that AtG existed right there and managed to conquer persia :roll:

 

apologist101

:lol: How desperate are you?

You've been proven wrong. Next.

oh, and BTW, you haven't actually addressed my point, Diodorus was the first to write significatn details about AtG's life.

any more idiocy today Jointed?

You can insult me as much as you want to but significant details is not what we're arguing here. We're arguing the existence of him. Unless you want to raise the bar even higher, which only makes it harder for your precious Jesus to qualify.

Sorry mate, but you'll need more than your Christian bias if you want to make a solid argument.  :lol:

You can insult me as much as you want to but significant details is not what we're arguing here. We're arguing the existence of him. Unless you want to raise the bar even higher, which only makes it harder for your precious Jesus to qualify.

Sorry mate, but you'll need more than your Christian bias if you want to make a solid argument. :lol:

jointed

Jointed *facepalm*, The writings of the historians who wrote about AtG (Plutarch, Diodorus) have no connection to eyewitnesses. The people from whom they recieved information had no connection to eyewitnesses. They lived hundreds of years after Alexander the great. Now I have no problem raising the bar. With the amount of data we have I wouldn't have trouble proving that Jesus not only existed, but died and rose again.

Now, the sources for the Gospels are traditions HANDED DOWN BY EYEWITNESSES. This is true in the case of Luke, mark, and John. Matthew however was evidently written BY AN EYEWITNESS (and so was John). The evidence that Jesus existed is rather impressive. again, I prescribed 3 books, I would suggest you head over to amazon.

Children tend to follow the idea of religion based upon what they are told at a young age.  As are those who believe in Santa Clause.

Both are likely to believe in unruly concepts.  Santa knows what you're doing, when you've been bad or good, and will make his judgement based upon how you act.  God knows what you're doing, when you've been bad or good, and will make his judgement based upon how you act. (presents/heaven vs. coal/hell).

These outlandish concepts are backed by delusional explanation.  Santa can fit down the chimney, see what you're doing and fly through the air because of magic.  God can do what he does because he is all-powerful.

Santa has elves.  God has angels.

Santa lives at the north pole, and you will never see him.  God lives in the heavens, and you will never see him.

The main difference between these groups of people; when children find their parents putting presents under the tree, they realize just how outlandish the claim of Santa Clause actually is.  When presented with the idea that the concept of God is outlandish (through various ways), children (regardless of age) continue to contribute delusional reasoning to "prove" god's existence to themselves.

It's as though, when faced with the concept of Mommy putting the presents under the tree, one simply deduced that Santa must have given the presents to mommy (or perhaps the store from which mommy bought them).

And, just like Santa, one becomes wiser once they understand that, perhaps, mommy and daddy weren't telling the truth about God. 

[QUOTE="jointed"]

You can insult me as much as you want to but significant details is not what we're arguing here. We're arguing the existence of him. Unless you want to raise the bar even higher, which only makes it harder for your precious Jesus to qualify.

Sorry mate, but you'll need more than your Christian bias if you want to make a solid argument. :lol:

apologist101

Jointed *facepalm*, The writings of the historians who wrote about AtG (Plutarch, Diodorus) have no connection to eyewitnesses. The people from whom they recieved information had no connection to eyewitnesses. They lived hundreds of years after Alexander the great. Now I have no problem raising the bar. With the amount of data we have I wouldn't have trouble proving that Jesus not only existed, but died and rose again.

Now, the sources for the Gospels are traditions HANDED DOWN BY EYEWITNESSES. This is true in the case of Luke, mark, and John. Matthew however was evidently written BY AN EYEWITNESS (and so was John). The evidence that Jesus existed is rather impressive. again, I prescribed 3 books, I would suggest you head over to amazon.

You've got to be kidding me, you're actually trying to argue this? Just give it up mate. There are countless of coins from that era, which are all solid proof of his existance. 

And don't spew your propaganda at me okay, if you want to prove his existence...do it properly. Using the Bible to prove it's claims is circular reasoning.

I would LOVE to see how the concept of God is "outlandish".

 apologist101

The thing is, you never will.  I'm assuming you're well into your 20s or 30s (perhaps further) -- if you haven't seen it yet, you won't.

 You believe that God loves each and every person he creates.

He, therefore, creates life in places where Christianity has not, and will not, reach the people.  They, therefore, are damned to an eternity in hell.  Remember though, he loves them.

He did not reveal himself as the one true God for thousands of years, and, therefore, to billions of people.  They, therefore, are damned to an eternity in hell.  BUT, he loves them.

He spoke to the Jews and called them his chosen people.  By today's Christian standards, however, they are damned to an eternal life in hell. God, however is defined as all knowing.  Thusly, he used deception on the Jewish people.  Definitely, he loves them.

2/3 of the world's population is NOT Christian.  Therefore, God creates 2 of every 3 human beings simply for the sake of burning eternally in hell (he is, after all, all-knowing, and is well aware that those he creates will not become Christian in their lifetime.)  He clearly loves them.

There's far more, and I haven't even touched upon the Epicurean Paradox.  Take a step outside of the box you live in, and examine the concept of Christians, and ONLY Christians, leading the "correct" life, and you'll understand just how outlandish it really all is.

Unfortunately, not many take the initiative to step outside of that box.

You've got to be kidding me, you're actually trying to argue this? Just give it up mate. There are countless of coins from that era, which are all solid proof of his existance. jointed

really? countless you say? can you give me one? and don't forget now, people have put fictional characters on coins before.

And don't spew your propaganda at me okay, if you want to prove his existence...do it properly. Using the Bible to prove it's claims is circular reasoning.

jointed

[QUOTE="jointed"]

You've got to be kidding me, you're actually trying to argue this? Just give it up mate. There are countless of coins from that era, which are all solid proof of his existance. apologist101

really? countless you say? can you give me one? and don't forget now, people have put fictional characters on coins before.

And don't spew your propaganda at me okay, if you want to prove his existence...do it properly. Using the Bible to prove it's claims is circular reasoning.

jointed

The NT is a collection of scriptures and letters from different authors. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AlexanderCoin.jpg

Mate, it doesn't matter how many times you insult me, it won't help your argument and the mods might see it.jointed

I must have missed the profound benevolence of your previous words.

oh, and about that coin, a date is conspicuosly absent. for all we can tell it could have been minted hundreds of years later.

The NT is a collection of scriptures and letters from different authors.

jointed

Ok, Apologist....I appreciate the fact that you're trying to defend your belief that Jesus existed. I believe that as well. But you're not making a very good case for Christians, or anyone else who believes that jesus existed, by continually insulting and speaking to people that way. It's really not necessary to get your point across. Can't you two have an intelligent debate without the insults and immaturity?

As for Jointed....question. Whydo you consider the bible to be any different than a history text book that you learned from in school? The information within had to be proven as fact as some point before it's allowed in the book, and to be retaught as truth, correct? (I'm not positive of the guidelines, as I don't write text books) But many books/excerpts from the Bible have been linked to other people, places, and happenings that had nothing to do with Jesus.

I want to recommend a series of videos. I believe they are called Drive Through History. It's history made fun, and, where possible or deemed necessary, linked to Jesus, the Roman Empire, AtG, and others. It's all intertwined, and comes with visual and or written proof.

Ok, Apologist....I appreciate the fact that you're trying to defend your belief that Jesus existed. I believe that as well. But you're not making a very good case for Christians, or anyone else who believes that jesus existed, by continually insulting and speaking to people that way. It's really not necessary to get your point across. Can't you two have an intelligent debate without the insults and immaturity?

New2theGame

Ok, Apologist....I appreciate the fact that you're trying to defend your belief that Jesus existed. I believe that as well. But you're not making a very good case for Christians, or anyone else who believes that jesus existed, by continually insulting and speaking to people that way. It's really not necessary to get your point across. Can't you two have an intelligent debate without the insults and immaturity?

As for Jointed....question. Whydo you consider the bible to be any different than a history text book that you learned from in school? The information within had to be proven as fact as some point before it's allowed in the book, and to be retaught as truth, correct? (I'm not positive of the guidelines, as I don't write text books) But many books/excerpts from the Bible have been linked to other people, places, and happenings that had nothing to do with Jesus.

I want to recommend a series of videos. I believe they are called Drive Through History. It's history made fun, and, where possible or deemed necessary, linked to Jesus, the Roman Empire, AtG, and others. It's all intertwined, and comes with visual and or written proof.

New2theGame

Listen mate, I'm in no way denying the existence of Jesus. I'm just asking for proof since a bloke earlier today claimed it to be absolute fact.

Personally, I believe that he existed. A religion like Christianity would not be able to spread as quickly as it did if it was a total lie. However, this can not be used as a fact, it only increases the possibility of his existence subjectively.

[QUOTE="New2theGame"]

Ok, Apologist....I appreciate the fact that you're trying to defend your belief that Jesus existed. I believe that as well. But you're not making a very good case for Christians, or anyone else who believes that jesus existed, by continually insulting and speaking to people that way. It's really not necessary to get your point across. Can't you two have an intelligent debate without the insults and immaturity?

apologist101

Just drop it mate. If you can't argue in a mature fashion then don't try at all. :roll: 

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

how is the existence of a transcendent, conscious cause of the universe "made up"? [QUOTE="Rikusaki"]and have no scientific proof of their existance? apologist101

lots of things dont have scientific proof for their existence, like the existence of truth, the existence of ethics, or the existence of the external world.

I dont know.

Rikusaki

:) I love you too.

Both God and Santa are old and have beards, right? :P 

The thing is, you never will. I'm assuming you're well into your 20s or 30s (perhaps further) -- if you haven't seen it yet, you won't.mercypoo

actually I'm 16, but I'm flattered that you thought that I was well into my 30s though.

You believe that God loves each and every person he creates.mercypoo

I do? then why does the Bible say that God hated Esau? why is god absolutely full of wrath in the Old Testament? Perhaps before asking the question "does god love everyone" we should ask first "does god love ANYONE?". Looking around I would say he should hate everyone.

He, therefore, creates life in places where Christianity has not, and will not, reach the people. They, therefore, are damned to an eternity in hell. Remember though, he loves them.mercypoo

He does?

He did not reveal himself as the one true God for thousands of years, and, therefore, to billions of people. They, therefore, are damned to an eternity in hell. BUT, he loves them.mercypoo

keep in mind, only 2% of all the people who ever lived lived before Jesus.

He spoke to the Jews and called them his chosen people. By today's Christian standards, however, they are damned to an eternal life in hell. mercypoo

could have something to do with that whole rejection of Christ's atoning death on the cross.

God, however is defined as all knowing. Thusly, he used deception on the Jewish people. mercypoo

How did God use deception on the Jewish people? he established a new covenent through Christ which most Jews rejected (and still reject.

Definitely, he loves them.mercypoo

once again, that's an assumption that God loves everyone. YHWH would like a word.

2/3 of the world's population is NOT Christian. Therefore, God creates 2 of every 3 human beings simply for the sake of burning eternally in hell (he is, after all, all-knowing, and is well aware that those he creates will not become Christian in their lifetime.) He clearly loves them.mercypoo

I would strongly suggest you look into Molinism and understand why free will and omniscience are not at odds.

There's far more, and I haven't even touched upon the Epicurean Paradox. Take a step outside of the box you live in, and examine the concept of Christians, and ONLY Christians, leading the "correct" life, and you'll understand just how outlandish it really all is.mercypoo

what is the "correct" life anyway?

Unfortunately, not many take the initiative to step outside of that box.

mercypoo

[QUOTE="New2theGame"]

Ok, Apologist....I appreciate the fact that you're trying to defend your belief that Jesus existed. I believe that as well. But you're not making a very good case for Christians, or anyone else who believes that jesus existed, by continually insulting and speaking to people that way. It's really not necessary to get your point across. Can't you two have an intelligent debate without the insults and immaturity?

As for Jointed....question. Whydo you consider the bible to be any different than a history text book that you learned from in school? The information within had to be proven as fact as some point before it's allowed in the book, and to be retaught as truth, correct? (I'm not positive of the guidelines, as I don't write text books) But many books/excerpts from the Bible have been linked to other people, places, and happenings that had nothing to do with Jesus.

I want to recommend a series of videos. I believe they are called Drive Through History. It's history made fun, and, where possible or deemed necessary, linked to Jesus, the Roman Empire, AtG, and others. It's all intertwined, and comes with visual and or written proof.

jointed

Listen mate, I'm in no way denying the existence of Jesus. I'm just asking for proof since a bloke earlier today claimed it to be absolute fact.

Personally, I believe that he existed. A religion like Christianity would not be able to spread as quickly as it did if it was a total lie. However, this can not be used as a fact, it only increases the possibility of his existence subjectively.

Well you get no arguement from me there. I guess I just don't understand why people try so hard to DISprove the existence of Jesus. There are writings, objects, and happenings that prove his existance, but I am in no shape to pull them out of my a** at the moment. So I will shut up now.

[QUOTE="apologist101"][QUOTE="New2theGame"]

Ok, Apologist....I appreciate the fact that you're trying to defend your belief that Jesus existed. I believe that as well. But you're not making a very good case for Christians, or anyone else who believes that jesus existed, by continually insulting and speaking to people that way. It's really not necessary to get your point across. Can't you two have an intelligent debate without the insults and immaturity?

jointed

Just drop it mate. If you can't argue in a mature fashion then don't try at all. :roll: 

Well you get no arguement from me there. I guess I just don't understand why people try so hard to DISprove the existence of Jesus. There are writings, objects, and happenings that prove his existance, but I am in no shape to pull them out of my a** at the moment. So I will shut up now.

New2theGame

1 Thessalonians 2:13-16, proves beyond any rational doubt that Paul believed in a historical Jesus. There's absolutely no room for a non-historical Jesus if Paul believed in a historical Jesus

all 4 Canonical Gospels

Tacitus' Annals 15.44

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3

There's also a reference to christ in Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan, but his source was christians who recanted so its' of no use to us.

For more, see Chapter 4 of The Jesus Legend by Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="apologist101"] well the profound ignorance betrayed by Jointed is pretty overwhelming. my guess is that today is the first time he has even heard of Richard Bauckham. Funky_Llama

Just drop it mate. If you can't argue in a mature fashion then don't try at all. :roll:

one more thing, Bauckham is a historian, not a theologian.

and you misspelled "Theologian"

[QUOTE="Rikardur"]

[QUOTE="apologist101"] please do not fall for that trick of equating the importance of the question of God to the existence of santa, easter bunny, or the tooth fairy. apologist101

Well they are all from the magical realm of Fairyland, so I say why not. ;)

Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy are children's stories. God is a transcendent creator of the universe. The existence of God has been in debate for thousands of years, even before Christ, people debated whether God exists. The existence of God is an extremely heavy question in terms of morality, epistemology, and existentialism.

Ancient texts such as the bible and the Quran are primitive writings by primitive beings that were not as mentally advanced as we are. Only a fool would believe those literally in this day and age.

one more thing, Bauckham is a historian, not a theologian.

and you misspelled "Theologian"

apologist101

Just looked him up, and he is a historical theologian.

Ancient texts such as the bible and the Quran are primitive writings by primitive beings that were not as mentally advanced as we are. Only a fool would believe those literally in this day and age.

xMOBSTER23x