Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[John V]

And that Herods command to have all the newborns slaughtered is recorded in the bible and nowhere else.

Strange that.

Have you ever read up on this? Historians estimate the number of children killed to be 20 or less.

[MitchBenn]

OP: citing the Bible agreeing with the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true is what we call Circular Logic. Why do you believe it? Because it's true! Why do you think it's true? Because I believe it! And so on, and so on.

There is NOT, as apologists like to claim, a welter of evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. There just isn't. This was a period in history in which records WERE kept, and NOWHERE other than in the Bible is the Jesus story mentioned. Sorry. Yes, there is apparently a mention of a rabbi named Yeshua in the writings of Josephus, but a. the authenticity of this passage is far from established (some historians dismiss it as having been inserted into the text some centuries later by Christian propagandists ) and b. so what? That's like historians 2000 years from now reading articles about BRUCE Springsteen and concluding that since there really were people called Bruce, then Batman was a historical character.

So no, we DON'T all concur that there really was a Jesus - although there may well have been - nor do we concur that he claimed divinity - though again, he may well have done. We're not dismissing these propositions out of hand but if you're seeking to class them as FACTS from which you can extrapolate other facts, then no. Sorry.

Of course, this is probably futile since the probability is that like most theist OPs on this forum, you won't return to discuss the objections to your proposition.

---

Bah. I haven't the patience to multi quote the OP.

I would address one issue...stating that 55CE is 'too early for legend'. Says who??? Anyone familiar with the outlaw West(US), is also familiar with how the James Gang was immortalized in dime store novels even as the gang still was operating. The stories romanticised the lawlessness because it made for sales, not because it was reporting the truth. I see no reason to consider the Jesus story as any different. It actually smacks strongly of legend, and has Jesse James to compare itself with. No doubt there are scores of legends assembled similarly.

Damn good point, and a more recent example: the James Bond books, and the earlier James Bond MOVIES (as well as their countless imitators) were created during the Cold War period, but glamourise and romanticise the Cold War beyond all recognition. Something doesn't have to have receded into history to become a fanciful legend.

[DLJ]

Challenge to theists: I find your faith disturbing!

I have got to the point where I do not hire theists.

If you want to destroy a well organised team built on mutual trust, hire someone who believes every bit of gossip and every rumour they hear and when challenged puts it down to 'human nature' i.e. they believe without evidence.

A good business requires rational thinkers

...
Now I'm going to assume that most of you are going to at least agree that Jesus did exist, and that he claimed to be the son of God.
...

Can someone point me to any evidence that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, please.
My version of the fan-fiction states 'Son of Man".

Apart from which, gods were ten-a-penny in Roman times.

So, sorry, wrong assumption... on both counts.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Oh yeah, there's also photographic evidence that the Loch Ness monster is real! How can you deny her existence? I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[pocaracas]

Oh yeah, there's also photographic evidence that the Loch Ness monster is real! How can you deny her existence? I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Everyone knows that Nessie is a male... -.-'
I hope, for your sake, that was a typo!

[Cheerful Charlie]

There's a number of you here that consistently deny that Jesus was a real historical person, which is utterly ridiculous and to that I would encourage you to listen to Bart Ehrman on this one:
.....
Firstly, we have excellent evidence that Jesus existed as a historical person, the only account of his death is by crucifixion, and importantly, we have very early written records.

Now I'm going to assume that most of you are going to at least agree that Jesus did exist, and that he claimed to be the son of God.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

This isn't a "legend". We have an early record of an even earlier creed. We think that the letter was written around 55AD. This is too early to allow for legend, and bare in mind the message that is contained is that Christ died for our sins; which by all accounts is the purpose of the crucifixion. The creed itself goes right back to within a few months or years of the crucifixion itself. There was no contradictory belief taught before this, and of that you can be certain.

The problem is, contradictions. Luke and Mark leave no room for being seen by 500 people. All the gospels contradict each other wildly. None of it can be taken seriously. Paul seems to know little about Jesus and what little he says has little to say outside of general theological claims.

The gospels, and Paul predict the second coming to happen soon, which did not happen as prophesied. Big miracle working promises, none of which were true.

Paul's general theology, God as electing some, dooming others as per Romans is insane. Why pay attention to him?
Jesus makes a number of commands, most notably, sell all you have and give to the poor. Yet most self described Christians ignore the many verses that command that and don't follow Jesus.

If Christians don't take Jesus seriously enough to follow his commandments, why should religious skeptics take any of this seriously?

Luke 14
33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.



.

[MindForgedManacle]

Whether or not Jesus existed is actually a red herring fallacy. I tend to just assume he did, because it cannot assist Christian theists in making their case, even in principle.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Oh yeah, there's also photographic evidence that the Loch Ness monster is real! How can you deny her existence? I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Everyone knows that Nessie is a male... -.-'
I hope, for your sake, that was a typo!

Nessie is clearly a feminine name.

[Zen Badger]

And that Herods command to have all the newborns slaughtered is recorded in the bible and nowhere else.

Strange that.

Have you ever read up on this? Historians estimate the number of children killed to be 20 or less.

Sources please.

And Dannyboy, nothing more to add to your OP?

[Minimalist]

And that Herods command to have all the newborns slaughtered is recorded in the bible and nowhere else.

Strange that.

Have you ever read up on this? Historians estimate the number of children killed to be 20 or less.

I estimate the number to be zero since this shit never happened.