Do you think jesus christ existed

[Aractus]

The Bible is an appalling historical document and is reliable for almost nothing.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what the more reliable historical documents from this time are? Specifically the ones that we are surer of of their original wording, if you don't mind.

[Zen Badger]

Show me the miracles.

Honestly Zen, why can't you respond with your smoking gun proof that everything I said has already been disproved - show me.

Do I have to go through this again?

The bible is not evidence, it is the claim. Therefore not admissible.

Josephus merely makes reference to the brother of someone called James being called Jesus. Even if it wasn't considered a forgery it is only evidence that someone called James had a brother called Jesus. Not that the son of god walked the earth.

Tacticus only makes reference to the followers of a self proclaimed messiah( or chrestos). No more convincing than writing about Mormons proves that Joseph Smith read golden tablets in a hat.

And so on and forth. These "proofs" might be convincing to you and your fellow sheep. But not to us.

Now granted, there might have really been an itinerant Jewish carpenter turned preacher that got his stupid ass nailed to a cross for being a pest.

But SO FUCKING WHAT?

Without evidence for the miracles or the resurrection it doesn't mean a fucking thing.

[là bạn điên]

I take issue with anyone who refers to themselves as a 'scholar' they are serious published academics or they aren't.

I'll tell you what. The moment your opinion matters I'll let you know.

Really? Thats nice for you.

[Minimalist]

Aye.

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

H. L. Mencken

[là bạn điên]

The Bible is an appalling historical document and is reliable for almost nothing.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what the more reliable historical documents from this time are? Specifically the ones that we are surer of of their original wording, if you don't mind.

I am assuming that you have no idea of the difference between primary and secondary evidence so ill explain it.

Primary evidence is actual artifact. Secondary evidence is Narrative. Here is an example.

Le'ts take an imaginary battle from 1500 CE We have reports that x number of people were there. These change from person to person and from how long afterwards the events happened so they aren't very reliable. This is secondary evidence.

However lets say we find stack of bills for provisions and munitions and a book of accounts. this is primary evidence, it will give us a far better idea of how many people were there.

The Gospels are at best very poor primary evidence based on testimony, probably second hand, from decades before.

a Good analogy would be a court case. Witness testimony is considered to be the worst evidence. Indeed courts in the UK will only accept narrative from notes if the notes were written within 24 hours and they don't accept hearsay and yet you believe 30 year old memories (at best) and hearsay are actually good evidence

[Aractus]

The bible is not evidence, it is the claim. Therefore not admissible.

Wow, resounding circular logic.

The New Testament is a stack of evidence, and some of it is universally accepted as fact. Ie, that Jesus lived, that he called disciples, that he was baptized and that he died by crucifixion. There are no contradicting accounts on any of these from the time of the NT material, or even from any time in the 2nd century.

So the very fact that you've decided to disregard something as having evidence is your own stupidity nothing more.

Josephus merely makes reference to the brother of someone called James being called Jesus. Even if it wasn't considered a forgery it is only evidence that someone called James had a brother called Jesus. Not that the son of god walked the earth.

Stop making straw man arguments. It is the consensus view that he mentions James of Jerusalem, and not just some "random person named James".

Tacticus only makes reference to the followers of a self proclaimed messiah( or chrestos). No more convincing than writing about Mormons proves that Joseph Smith read golden tablets in a hat.

It proves that Christianity didn't start in the second century, again, stop making straw man arguments.

And so on and forth. These "proofs" might be convincing to you and your fellow sheep. But not to us.

I'm talking about facts accepted by all serious scholars, regardless of their faith.

Now why don't you hurry up and prove the claim you made before, please.

[Zen Badger]

The bible is not evidence, it is the claim. Therefore not admissible.

Wow, resounding circular logic.

The New Testament is a stack of evidence, and some of it is universally accepted as fact. Ie, that Jesus lived, that he called disciples, that he was baptized and that he died by crucifixion. There are no contradicting accounts on any of these from the time of the NT material, or even from any time in the 2nd century.

So the very fact that you've decided to disregard something as having evidence is your own stupidity nothing more.

Josephus merely makes reference to the brother of someone called James being called Jesus. Even if it wasn't considered a forgery it is only evidence that someone called James had a brother called Jesus. Not that the son of god walked the earth.

Stop making straw man arguments. It is the consensus view that he mentions James of Jerusalem, and not just some "random person named James".

Tacticus only makes reference to the followers of a self proclaimed messiah( or chrestos). No more convincing than writing about Mormons proves that Joseph Smith read golden tablets in a hat.

It proves that Christianity didn't start in the second century, again, stop making straw man arguments.

And so on and forth. These "proofs" might be convincing to you and your fellow sheep. But not to us.

I'm talking about facts accepted by all serious scholars, regardless of their faith.

Now why don't you hurry up and prove the claim you made before, please.

Let me reiterate....
Even if it was true that someone called Jesus existed, it means fuck all without the resurrection. And you have no proof of that at all.

[Minimalist]

Wow, resounding circular logic.

No, simple fact, Danny. Your bible is a pile of shit. When examined against archaeological evidence it is found to be seriously deficient. Sorry, but now you can get on with your life and forget about fucking jesus.

You can thank me later.

[Belac Enrobso]

[Aractus]