(January 3, 2014 at 2:05 am)Minimalist Wrote: Then understand that NONE OF THE FUCKING THINGS WERE WRITTEN BY APOSTLES BECAUSE THERE WERE NO FUCKING APOSTLES.

We do not know that either. There may well have been a Jesus who had 12 apostles...or its complete bollocks or something in between. If you insist that there were not any Apostles then the Onus is yours to prove why not.

The only rational answer we have is that there is insufficient proof to believe that there were any apostles.

(January 3, 2014 at 5:15 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Hey Danny, why are you ignoring my question about the resurrection?

1. You haven't contributed anything to the discussion.
2. Your question is offtopic.

(January 3, 2014 at 6:38 am)Aractus Wrote:

(January 3, 2014 at 5:15 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Hey Danny, why are you ignoring my question about the resurrection?

1. You haven't contributed anything to the discussion.

You don't get to define that sonny.

Quote:2. Your question is offtopic.

Bullshit. This thread is about the existence of JC.

An essential part of that is the resurrection.

In fact, it is the most important part. Because without it your godboy is just another wannabe messiah with delusions of grandeur.

And you can drag up all the second hand manuscripts and all the vague third hand references you like. But without that jesus and christianity is a fraud.

And all your arguments are empty.

See? You can't even decide on what you want. First you say "without [the ressurection] [Jesus] is just [an ordinary historical person]" next you say "But without that jesus and christianity is a fraud" - grow up.

You don't get to set impossible conditions and then contradict yourself within your own post on whether or not you think Jesus existed.

IF the resurrection never happened, Zen, that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist.

Now I've mentioned again and again what practically all New Testament scholars agree upon, one being that Jesus called disciples - look back through every time I've said this and I will have always used that wording and never said "Jesus called 12 disciples" because, although I certainly believe he did and so does every Christian, it's not accepted by sceptical scholars, although they do believe that he did (at the very least) call disciples.

(January 3, 2014 at 7:04 am)Aractus Wrote: IF the resurrection never happened, Zen, that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist.

But without the resurrection jesus becomes just another man.

And since the central tenet of christianity is that jesus is the son of god(or god himself in human form) what then is your religion if its core belief is a lie?

Again, that's off topic, but thanks for clarifying your opinion and finally settling it in one place.

(January 3, 2014 at 8:56 am)Aractus Wrote: Again, that's off topic, but thanks for clarifying your opinion and finally settling it in one place.

Your deflections make it abundantly clear that you don't have evidence for the resurrection and that you fear the implications that arise from Jesus being a mere man.

But hey bro, I understand. It's a scary place to go.

(December 31, 2013 at 8:04 am)Stimbo Wrote: No, I don't think the character existed in any true sense outside of the mythological one. What nails it for me (pun accidental but pleasing) is the combination of: zero contemporary non-scriptural references, scriptural failure to mention known historical events, scriptural references which are anachronistic to the political and cultural era in which they are supposed to have occurred, and so on. The claims of magic and the sheer mountain range of blatant lies that have been deemed necessary - and useful - to prop up the story of the character's basic existence are merely the cherry on top.

maybe that is because all detailed 'contemporary' references were assimilated into what you consider 'scriptural texts' 1700 years ago.

(January 3, 2014 at 9:02 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Your deflections make it abundantly clear that you don't have evidence for the resurrection and that you fear the implications that arise from Jesus being a mere man.

But hey bro, I understand. It's a scary place to go.

Again, that's off-topic. There is evidence - Gospel evidence. Beyond that, yes, there is no further evidence (except of course for the sudden spread of the early Christian church itself, and if Jesus didn't appear to them then we don't know what motivated them after he had died). Sceptical scholars would say the evidence is insufficient (but they'll still agree that he was baptized and that he called disciples and died on a cross). You're not telling me anything I don't know, and you won't even discuss the on-topic discussion ... the evidence that Christ existed; not the evidence for each of the individual things he did or said.

(January 3, 2014 at 10:11 am)Aractus Wrote: Again, that's off-topic. There is evidence - Gospel evidence. Beyond that, yes, there is no further evidence (except of course for the sudden spread of the early Christian church itself, and if Jesus didn't appear to them then we don't know what motivated them after he had died)

So if a religion spreads quickly then it must be true? islam seems to have spread pretty damned quickly

Quote:. Sceptical scholars would say the evidence is insufficient (but they'll still agree that he was baptized and that he called disciples and died on a cross).

That scholar word again. 'Scholars' may agree to anything. Proper academics do not insist that the is overwhelming proof that jesus 'was baptised'.

Quote: You're not telling me anything I don't know, and you won't even discuss the on-topic discussion ... the evidence that Christ existed; not the evidence for each of the individual things he did or said.

Probably because you refuse to provide proof of his existence you just say 'the bible says so'