Do you think jesus christ existed

[là bạn điên]

Glad you asked. Very few scholars dispute the author is the same person,
[/quote]

Ah the nonsense about scholars again. I couldn;t give a damn for 'scholars' and their nonsense.

they're both addressed to the same person Theophilus, and Acts begins with "In the first book, O Theophilus ..." The writing style is similar and very well written, the only book in the NT that scholars say is more sophisticated in its Greek is the book of Hebrews and for this reason many scholars hold the view that Luke penned the Epistle and that Paul or somebody else close to Paul dictated it to Luke (this of course assumes that Luke didn't use a scribe). Regardless of the authorship of Hebrews, Luke-Acts total 27.5% of the NT text - so there's a huge amount of text to compare between the two. In comparison, all 13 of Paul's Epistles total 23.5% of the NT text, yet many scholars as you know claim that the much shorter epistles is enough to gauge his writing style - despite the fact that he uses scribes and doesn't pen his own letters!

So just by writing 'dear theophilus' its the same person.???

Oh yes we do, there's no doubt that Paul existed. First off there are his 13 Letters - the 7 undisputed plus the six additional ones that all contain similar greetings, and similar farewells to them, and all say that they're written by Paul.

There is plenty of doubt. You have letters and can't prove who wrote them

Then we have the book of Acts which talks about Paul extensively in the present, and three times Luke uses the first-person plural narrative which strongly implies that at the very least in those passages the author of Acts himself was present. 2 Peter also mentions Paul. We know more about St Paul than any other early Christian after Christ dies in the first century.

Again you go back to the bible as your proof.

Somebody had to write his 13 Epistles, as you know sceptical scholars (atheists, agnostics, etc) only accept his authorship of 7 - leaving 6 that they would believe are pseudographically attributed to him - well pseudepigrapha requires that the person you're attributing your letter to is a real person. Also, nobody would write 7 letters and pseudographically attribute them to the one person, the notion is absurd. So any way you look at it, Paul had to have existed.

No. He quite possibly did but you have no evidence. There are no atheist'scholars' that term is used by Bahbul loons. We have academics

Feel free to provide your counter-evidence - specifically I'd like to know why somebody would attribute 7-13 letters to an invented character?

Read Dracula, its full of invented letters.

Rubbish, I provided you more than that. I've given you primary considerations, and secondary considerations - and then there are literacy considerations, etc, that come in to play as well. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18, and before you kick up a fuss about whether we know the authorship or not (since it's not one of the magic 7). The Last Supper takes place in all three synoptic gospels. Most accounts omit the first passing of the wine, but Luke's does not. Luke's also says this:

You have not given a single piece of primary evidence. Indeed you have demonstrated you don;t even know what the term means

Irrelivant as that section isn't forged - and you've just changed your argument.

How do you know -did the bahbul tell you or is it some 'scholars' from "Hope 'n Glory" Bahbul school, Buttfuck Mo. ?

Fuck you,

Now there is naughty languagehock:

I grow impatient of your ignorance and stupidity.

Is it just me or does this guy think he is a James bond master villain

Go troll elsewhere

I'M HAPPY HERE THANKS!

[Aractus]

And you've been reported.

I direct you here:

No Trolling
Trolling is where a person makes a deliberately provocative posting with the aim of inciting an angry response, and is not allowed. As discussions can at times get heated, not all provocative posts will get classed as trolling. However, if a member is found to be making multiple such posts, or appear to only be using the forum to provoke people, they will be in violation of this rule.

[là bạn điên]

So you coming onto an atheist forum and calling us idiots ISN'T trolling but me calling out your theist idiocy is?

Strangely I don;t think many here will see it that way

[NoraBrimstone]

OK. One of the first things you learn on a History course is what is classed as a reliable source (which is why it's good to study History if you want to be a Lawyer). Primary Sources are generally more reliable than Secondary Sources. As there are no Primary Sources to suggest Jesus ever existed, the fact that the Secondary Sources are all based on hearsay makes them as useless as evidence as the testimony that girl who told you that story about your local fast food restaurant being shut down after a girl ate a burger from there and got herpes because 12 men had wanked into the mayo.

[Aractus]

Paul is a primary source as he knew the family and disciples of Jesus. James is a primary source (brother of Jesus). Luke may be, we don't know. John and Peter are also primary sources - the only way you discount this is my disputing authorship, and to do that you need evidence, and that evidence is all internal NT textual criticism. Then we also have secondary sources - these would be Mark/Matthew/Luke/John the Elder. You have primary sources for all of the disciples (the 11), plus Paul, Luke, James, Mary and Joseph (James and Paul and Luke and Peter). Even if Luke is not a primary source for the disciples he is for Paul. 2 Pet. is also a primary source for Paul.

---

So you coming onto an atheist forum and calling us idiots ISN'T trolling but me calling out your theist idiocy is?

Strangely I don;t think many here will see it that way

Hey here's a clue fucknuckle, I seldom use the report feature - and I used it because you specifically stated that I had no right to be here as a Christian. Then, afterward you went and edited your post - after I had already replied and reported you - and removed those comments.

Your prejudice is no different to racism. If you think it is, next time my boss is in ear shot I'll record his racism for you and prove that what he says about arabs/muslims, jews, chinks, wogs, jiggabos, yarpies (he hates all south africans actually not just the men) and indians is near word-for-word identical to what you say. I have to put up with his fucking bullshit hate-mongering prejudice all the time I'm not putting up with yours.

(edit to add) And one final thing: you have no right to come on here and tell me to leave because I'm a Christian.

[Clueless Morgan]

Richard Dawkins believes he existed:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUB5fDW5xq8

---

So did Albert Einstein:

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

You can make this exact same argument in defense of any other famous fictional character:

"You accept the historical existence of Sherlock Holmes?"

"Unquestionably. No one can read the works of John Watson without feeling the actual presence of Sherlock Holmes. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary figures of the Victorian Era like William Gladstone or Charles Dickens. Gladstone and other figures of his type lack the authentic vitality of Holmes."


If appeals to "I believe the dude was real because, man! Those stories about him are awesome!" actually equate to an argument for that character's historicity, than I believe Harry Potter is a real person.

[Cyberman]

(edit to add) And one final thing: you have no right to come on here and tell me to leave because I'm a Christian.

Sure he does; inasmuch as anyone has said that to you, anyway. Just as you have the right to tell him to go and fornicate with himself for saying it.

[là bạn điên]

Paul is a primary source as he knew the family and disciples of Jesus.

Thank you for proving that you have no idea what a primary source is

James is a primary source (brother of Jesus).

And again

Luke may be, we don't know. John and Peter are also primary sources - the only way you discount this is my disputing authorship, and to do that you need evidence, and that evidence is all internal NT textual criticism.

No. the Onus is on you to prove that they were the writers. Since I have not said that they weren't the writers only that there is insufficient proof I have nothing to prove.





Strangely I don;t think many here will see it that way[/quote]

Hey here's a clue fucknuckle, I seldom use the report feature - and I used it because you specifically stated that I had no right to be here as a Christian. Then, afterward you went and edited your post - after I had already replied and reported you - and removed those comments.

You really are delusional. odd that I have not received a single message from the moderators about it but I am 'in trouble' it seems.

Your prejudice is no different to racism. If you think it is, next time my boss is in ear shot I'll record his racism for you and prove that what he says about arabs/muslims, jews, chinks, wogs, jiggabos, yarpies (he hates all south africans actually not just the men) and indians is near word-for-word identical to what you say. I have to put up with his fucking bullshit hate-mongering prejudice all the time I'm not putting up with yours.

Ah you are an Australian. I have no interest in race. The subject is boring.

And one final thing: you have no right to come on here and tell me to leave because I'm a Christian.

No, I didn't do that. I want you to stay and wibble on about 'Scholars' and show your ignorance about 'primary evidence'

[Aractus]

Sure he does; inasmuch as anyone has said that to you, anyway. Just as you have the right to tell him to go and fornicate with himself for saying it.

The dude's a lying sack of shit, he edited his post and removed the comments he made after I posted and then denies ever making them. What a textbook example of the definition of "Troll".

I'm done with this thread until an intelligent on-topic reply comes along.

PS: Does he "have the right" to tell people the same thing based on their race, or only based on their beliefs?

[là bạn điên]

The dude's a lying sack of shit, he edited his post and removed the comments he made after I posted and then denies ever making them. What a textbook example of the definition of "Troll"..

You have a record of this?

I'm done with this thread until an intelligent on-topic reply comes along.

By then! See you later. Bring some 'scholars'!

PS: Does he "have the right" to tell people the same thing based on their race, or only based on their beliefs?

Say what? Tell people what?