There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Juice]

I know a lot more about the Bible than Ehrman or any other Christian scholar. I know that it isn’t even remotely historical. They don’t. I personally think Bart Ehrman is a knucklehead. The Jesusneverexited website has him beat by a mile. 1000 miles. And you by a billion.

Can anyone say screwball?

I think this guy was hit by a van 51 times when he was a baby.

[Xru]

lilpixieofterror - your are truly the little pixie of Terror. Ha ha ha ha.

Your are too too bad.

High five.

[lilpixieofterror]

Can anyone say screwball?

I think this guy was hit by a van 51 times when he was a baby.

I'm thinking we got a poe here myself.

[lilpixieofterror]

lilpixieofterror - your are truly the little pixie of Terror. Ha ha ha ha.

Your are too too bad.

High five.

Well thanks.

[Juice]

Against my better judgment I’ll continue with this guy just to see what he says next. After all, his lunacy does at least provide some entertainment value.

Response: Okay give me an example of some history writing prior to Herodotus. See in the real world, where most of us live, you can’t just say someting exists and expect people to believe you. You have to prove it. Now I know facts have no place in religion so it’s no wonder you’re not used to backing up your claims.

What you originally asserted was…

Fiction writing was the only kind of writing there was until Herodotus came along.

Now you are asking specifically for “history writing” as we understand it today which is something different and what Herodotus tried to do. The Cyrus Cylinder and Code of Hammurabi off the top of my head are examples of writing that were not fiction writing, contained some history, and predated Herodotus. Just do a little research of your own if you are capable of that.

Response: “Now in the Messiah Myth, distinguished Bibloical scholar Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed.” – From the book cover

In other words it appears what he is arguing is the Jesus of the Gospels never existed (i.e. Jesus the Messiah, the son of God), not that Jesus the historical man never existed. Are you too thick to understand the difference?

Response: So your telling me Tom Harpur taught in seminary because he had degree in journalism? Yeah sure. And you wonder why most of the world doesn’t believe a word you people say.

You are telling me that only having an MA and teaching in seminary over 25 years ago makes him a credible scholar? Well, maybe in your world it does. Harpur is a popular spiritual author, journalist, and TV host. Don’t believe me? Read his own website here.

Response: No, it’s because you didn’t answer the question. And what’s so silly is that you know you didn’t.

Read it again. Do try to keep up.

Response: Yet you appeal to the supposed authority of Tales of the Supernatural Testaments 1 and 2.

That’s not an appeal to authority, that is an appeal to the primary evidence in question.

Response: I know a lot more about the Bible than Ehrman or any other Christian scholar. I know that it isn’t even remotely historical. They don’t. I personally think Bart Ehrman is a knucklehead. The Jesusneverexited website has him beat by a mile. 1000 miles. And you by a billion.

Lunacy at its finest.

Response: No my point has not been refuted at all and you know it.

Is that because you are going to now argue Caesar was fictional too?

Response: “Archaeological data have now definitely confirmed that the empire of David and Solomon never existed.” – Biblical Archaeological Revue 31, no. 1 (January/February 2005): 16-17. Your own scholars and archaeologists say David and Solomon are mythical figures. Great Jesus is the descendent of a fictional character. I think that’s good proof Jesus never existed right there. Oh wait, 3 letters on a rock proved a boy killed a 9 foot tall giant with a slingshot! It must be true! Cookoo, cookoo, cookoo...

Don’t you bother to read what you type? That quote says their “empire” didn’t exist, not that David and Solomon were mythical figures.

Laugh all you want. Produce some historical evidence that Paul really existed. Now the laugh’s on you isn’t it?

His undisputed letters, Acts, and 1 Clement.

Oh yes. That interview is a few years old. Ehrman has changed his views dramaitically since then. Get his book and see for yourself. You see, now that Ehrman isn’t a Christian he’s allowed to think for himself and change his mind. Unlike you. Very unlike you.

Quote Ehrman from the source where he says the entire NT was a bunch of forgeries. Quote it with a reference.

Response: Go ahead and refute something on that website.

I’m refuting you. Isn’t jesusneverexisted.com your primary source of all things Jesus?

Response: Oh please you know we atheists are all laughing at you. Why should I take my ball home? You just keep lobbing those pitches and I’ll keep knocking them into the seats.

The laughter you hear, smackbyavan51times, is not people laughing with you.

Rational Gaze, thanks for your desperate appeal to authorities who of course are not really authorities at all.

Oh, but Tom Harpur is.

You'd take first prize in a lunatic contest smackedbyaVan51times

[SarahB]

Can you please learn how to use the quote function instead of using tons and tons of font changes? It's not that hard to learn and is easier to follow. Anyway, never been to a Christian college, but even then many of them are accredited institutions that do have accreditation though a source and sorry child, but there's many secular schools that are diploma mills and I would love for you to name a Christian scholar that got their credentials from a diploma mill. Last I checked, NT Wright, Ben Witherington, William Lane Craig, and many others got theirs from accredated schools too, so perhaps you'll do something that isn't just a genetic fallacy combined with ad hominems? Third, where did I claim to be a 'pastor'? The claim of going to school is hardly a unique claim because millions of people go to college ever year. In truth, yet another ad hominem by you. Finally, I grew up in Cali child and I just moved to Kansas due to my career and nope, never have owned a truck in my life, but I have owned a few cars. So in the end, all you really got here is some ad hominems, genetic fallacies, and ranting that doesn't produce an argument.



Since I do not agree with the quote, it has no bearing on anything. Why is it my job to defend or answer random soundbites that you produce? I can throw out soundbites too, what does that prove?



I guess you never heard of George Washington and the many other founding fathers who were rather devout Christians, but I guess fundy atheist don't read their history or understand what they are talking about. Figures, but you are aware that George Washington had prayer before his dinners, demanded his men not to cuss, and also established the US Chaplain corp. and had Chaplains serving right along his men during the war (I should also note as an historical note, the military chaplain corp. is the second oldest establish corp. in the US military). So right there, your argument falls flat on it's face and is exposed for the historical mess it really is. Now can you produce anything at all to back your arguments because I just presented three facts that proved you wrong and showed you as the mental midget you truly are. Now please get your facts straight before you present obvious false hoods and mistruths like this. Both the founding fathers and the English invoked God in their writings and even a courtesy reading of the Decoration of Independence would establish this fact. This tells me how little you have read and/or you're just a trolling, trolling forms for your own personal amusement.



Yawn... fundy atheism seems to strike again because all Thomas Paine is presenting is an assertion and assertions are not arguments. Why should have Matthew told his listeners things that would make Thomas Paine happy? This is simply another one of the, "DUH! God doesn't do what I want to exist!" sort of reasoning that is so typical of a fundy atheist. Assertions can be hand waved away until you can give an argument. Now explain to everybody, why is Matthew required to personally please Thomas Paine in order for his works to be true? Again Thomas Paine seems to fail at logic and thinking....



More assertions, well poisoning, and rants, but nothing so far that actually proves you know what you are talking about. Now can you actually give an argument here?



And that has what to do with the argument at hand? The bible doesn't present arguments though assertion and simply make up things to make their arguments sound good, do they? But since you seem to be letting issues mysteriously drop that you have been proved wrong on, that tells me a lot about your intergity.



Soundbites are not arguments dear. Harriett is most likely like you, actually doesn't understand what she rejects but feels having an opinion is good enough. It's so amusing how fundy atheist don't bother to study the thing they claim to reject and say all sorts of ill informed things about it, like you did below...



Too bad you are not my brother in Christ nor a member of my family, huh? You might want to read a commentary because almost every major denomination interprets that passage to be talking about other Christians or even their family. You are not another Christian nor are you a member of my family so sorry... your argument also falls apart too. Gosh, must suck to be so stupid that you don't bother to actually read what the Bible says or read some commentaries before you speak such utter nonsense. It's too bad that I know what I'm talking about and you don't and you yet again show how real understand and



This is easily proved false just by pointing out that Zondervan has printed and distributed 400 million NIV copies since 1978 (far more then your fundy atheist friends have been able to print in their literature combined), so just going off from copies distributed of the NIV, Zondervan beats out all your buddies atheist right there. From what I can find of their sales figures, I’m finding their sales figures are around 160 million dollars. So it looks as though they are a pretty major publishing company that manages to make quite a bit of many, with its NIV far surpassing anything your fundy atheist buddies have found out. So sorry, you lose here again. The truth is that your fundy atheist buddies couldn't get published by respected



Zondervan's 160 million dollar sales figure seems to say otherwise... Perhaps it's because Jesus mythers are not taken seriously by anybody outside their own community and are universally rejected by both Christians and atheist alike? Bart Ehrman doesn't take the Jesus myth seriously and even groups like the Jesus seminar (which reject Christian views of the bible) think it is bunk.



I'm sure I'll think it's funny too, but for different reasons. Shoot, if you can't even be bothered to read and find that the majority of the founding fathers were Christians well, that tells me how seriously I should take you or anything you write.



Thomas Thompson - as Juice pointed out, few people outside his circle take him seriously and the fact that I can find almost nothing about him, speaks volumes.
Tom Harpur - a journalist and TV host, not a scholar.
J.C. Stendel - I think the fact that a google search gives your post in the 3rd search result tells me how seriously I should take him too.
Van der berg - can't find anything on him, which tells me he's pretty obscure and most likely not taken seriously either.
G.R.S. Mead - an author, translator, and a member of the Theosophical society (the 19th century version of the new agers), not a scholar either.
Georg Brandes - he was a scholar alright... of European literature. Not a Bible scholar either...
Charles Virolleaud - an archaeologist, so maybe he has something relevant in some areas, but I can't find anything about his writings or what he specifically did archaeology on either.

So just looking at some of these names from your list, they are either non-experts, so obscure and unheard of hardly nobody knows anything about them, or have degrees totally irrelevant to the field in question. Again, if your research abilities are this poor and you can't even be bother to find a relevant scholar, it tells me how seriously I should take you or any book you write. By chance have you looked at making your book an example in the wrong ways to do research? It seems to me that you found a lot of non-experts to support your opinion, but really didn't bother to see if they know what they are talking about.



I doubt that judging by how poor your research above is showing itself out to be.



I see a nameless scholar, who is he and what did he say? You can tell a lot about a person when they refuse to give specifics and just give vague answers.



That's nice and this guy is who? His degree is in what? His statement is what? Now give specifics and stop with the vague answers that don't answer anything I said or asked.





Well known oral tradition doesn't make it fiction dill weed. I'm starting to see something here... X person said it was a well known oral tradition, you are warping this to mean something else because you are too uneducated to know that oral tradition was how things were passed around in that era before something was written down. Next, what is your evidence? An assertion? Assertions without evidence can be dismissed as such until you can present otherwise.



Too bad I am a science major, but perhaps you can name a scientific experiment that has proved miracles are impossible. I'll be waiting for your answer and sorry, "Dead people stay dead!" isn't an argument since I agree with that too. Thus the reason the resurrection is a miracle.



I love assertions without evidence, now prove it...



You just make up excuses it seems. It couldn't be that Nicodemus didn't later recall his meeting with Jesus to somebody else and this account made its way back to John. It also couldn't be that Jesus later told his disciples about the conversation with Nicodemus and John later recounted what he was told in his own writings. It couldn't also be that somebody was listening in, from a distance. Nope, the answer you made up is that John must be fiction! Ever hear of Occam's razor? The easiest answer is that one of these two people either told John directly, told somebody else who told John, or somebody was listening in on the conversation from a distance. Yet you say that I lack 'critical thinking'. You're fully of dumb reasoning like this, huh?



Translation: "Crap, you proved me wrong, let me throw in an insult because I couldn't deal with a word you said!"

That's far more accurate then pretending to know what you are talking about, huh? You asked me for a writing that gave quotes and it was produced, so you changed up the goal post and ignored the far simpler answer that proved your idiocy was wrong. The only thing I had to look up on the internet was the obscure names you gave to make your arguments look bad. You really didn't produce any scholars at all, you produced nobodies and obscure people that next to nobody has heard about. All together, you made yourself look even stupider then you already did before (if that was possible) good job, you are an even bigger idiot now then you were before.



I love this sort of dumb argument that shows that fundy atheist can't think, let us follow it to its logical conclusion:

1. Babies are born without a knowledge of evolution, math, science, history, English, literature, etc, guess all that stuff is false too! Even if I assume you are correct, your argument doesn't follow.
2. What sort of experiment did you prefer to prove this? Did you poll babies and figured out their religious beliefs from birth? I've heard this assertion before, but when it comes right down to it. It's fundy atheist assuming that atheism is 'default' position and therefore using their philosophy to assume that babies are also atheist.

This is the sort of sloppy thinking that is so common among fundies of all stripes. Goes to show that fundy atheist and Christians all think and reason the same, the only difference is that one is a Christian and the other is an atheist.



Wow, so much fail and so little time to cover it all... time for some fun.

1. Many ancient works do not have originals either, so what? Tacitus' works date from around the 1st century by the earliest copies we have date from the 10th century. I don’t see any historians throwing a fit about that.
2. Non-Christian date the NT from the first century too child and only your obscure nonsense dates it any later.
3. Your last assertion that Jesus was only picture in art as a lamb and never a human until the 8th century is proved false just by a google search. Here is an article that puts that assertion to shame since it list out a 3rd century drawing, A 5th and 6th century paintings, and a mosaic, and even graffito from around the 2nd century that depicts Jesus as a human. Sorry, this claim of yours is proved false by a 30 second search and shows you're an idiot.

Looks like you proved you're an idiot again that can't even take 30 seconds to search google to see if your claims are even true. There's a lot to say about a person that doesn't even bother to look up things before he states absurd notions.



This of course, comes from the same person that tries to argue that there is nothing that depicts Jesus as a human before the 8th century even when a couple second search would expose this as totally false yet I'm the one with the ego and I'm the one with the delusion? I didn't know you did humor too.



You do know that I am a science student and most likely know more about science then you do, right? Anyway, do you have anything that isn't just a giant ad hominem? Your above is just that, a giant insult without specifics. I'm not angry, I'm rather confident and claim because you have presented forward such false ideas that are proved wrong even by a quick glance it's almost laughable. Of course, I think it's funny how you whine about me using insults, while failing to notice your own insults. I guess it's only wrong to insult people when you disagree with them, is that right?

BTW I'm a theistic evolutionist and there's many other theistic evolutionist out there as well as books written about it. Again, if you would bother to read before you hurl insults, you would know this. I agree that transitional fossils exist and have even debated extremist YEC's too.

The rest of your rants are addressed to others so I'm not going into details here, but I will deal with your last part...



First off, this is a forum, not a blog, so please learn the difference. Second, you go on to insult myself and every Christian, willfully ignore evidence that goes against your held beliefs, and make all sorts of absurd claims and yet you whine about us insulting you? I guess you love to dish it out, but can't take what you dish out. If you can't handle being insulted, I would suggest that you stop with the insult yourself or are you above the rules and standards you hold others to?

Who calls himself a Science Major?

I was going to point out some elementary errors in logic, form, syntax, usage, composition, malapropisms, et cetera but a CURSORY glance shows they are just too numerous. For you to question someone's education and intelligence levels amid all that is just cute, cute, cute.

Also, your proclivity for insults and imperiousness belie any pretense of a personal relationship with Christ. Your exclusivity of Matt5:22 may turn out to be personally reckless.

[lilpixieofterror]

Who calls himself a Science Major?

I'm a she, but perhaps you should try reading profiles before you speak? Anyway, I'm not the one making basic errors of facts that are proved false by even a quick glance with google, am I? Nope, but your atheist buddy seems to be doing that. Are you one of those mindless atheist bots that simply defend anybody with 'atheist' in their profile, regardless of how dumb their post are?

I was going to point out some elementary errors in logic, form, syntax, usage, composition, malapropisms, et cetera but a CURSORY glance shows they are just too numerous. For you to question someone's education and intelligence levels amid all that is just cute, cute, cute.

I see you've returned to your passive-aggressive brow beating over showing me in error. How typical of a cheer leader who actually doesn't have anything relevant to present forward into the debate. I should note to you that the time I spending editing my post is in direct proportion to my respect of the person I am responding to and since I don't respect you one tiny bit; I don't spend hardly any time in the editing process. It's too bad that when I do take my time and do take the effort to write better I usually get some pretty good comments from some pretty high esteemed individuals. I've had commanders, supervisors, professors, and even lawyers that have said I have a pretty good ability to write when I take the time to do it. Just so you are aware, I kind of do that on purpose just to lure idiots like you into a false sense of security. Now, show my elementary errors in logic, child, and explain, with detail, what those errors are and why those are errors.

Also, your proclivity for insults and imperiousness belie any pretense of a personal relationship with Christ. Your exclusivity of Matt5:22 may turn out to be personally reckless.

In other words, you can't refute a word I said on the topic and know it, so you're hoping that I can't see though your passive-aggressive banter for what it really is. You and your buddies earn everything you get and more. Sorry child, but even the most basic commentary will tell you that the most common and popular interpretation of this is about Christian brother and sisters in Christ. You are not them, are you? Second, respect is earned and you haven't earned respect because you keep trying to passive-aggressively brow beat myself and those you disagree with, while of course, condemning the very behavior you are taking part in. Therefore you don't deserve respect and thus, you don't get it. Is that so hard for you to process?

Now get to work Sarahb, show me errors or are you also a Jesus myther and think such stupid things as there were no Christian founding fathers or that there were no paintings of Jesus depicted as a human before the 8th century?

[SarahB]

I'm a she, but perhaps you should try reading profiles before you speak?

It was in the general sense, hence the universal "he". I don't recall anyone ever declaring "I'm a science major."

Anyway, I'm not the one making basic errors of facts that are proved false by even a quick glance with google, am I? Nope, but your atheist buddy seems to be doing that

Random, arbitrary declarations of "proved" are not proof; are they?

. Are you one of those mindless atheist bots that simply defend anybody with 'atheist' in their profile, regardless of how dumb their post are?

No, I'm not. FYI: "post" and "atheist" are not plural. You and another member frequently make that error.

I see you've returned to your passive-aggressive brow beating over showing me in error.

Brow beating? Too cute. You over- and mis-use passive-aggressive. That term must've (oh, wait: must of) worked on you in the past.

How typical of a cheer leader who actually doesn't have anything relevant to present forward into the debate.

Present forward? What a useless awkward term. Is that military?

I should note to you that the time I spending editing my post is in direct proportion to my respect of the person I am responding to and since I don't respect you one tiny bit; I don't spend hardly any time in the editing process.

Apparent-LY. Actually, that is one of the more absurd excuses for ineptitude you've attempted. You are also declaring you don't give any respect to others who may read what you "present forward".

It's too bad that when I do take my time and do take the effort to write better I usually get some pretty good comments from some pretty high esteemed individuals. I've had commanders, supervisors, professors, and even lawyers that have said I have a pretty good ability to write when I take the time to do it.

All those pretty highly esteemed individuals; very impressive. Most of us have never been approached with such plaudits. You see, Crystal (can I call you Crystal?), I know you're special and all, but you can't just say stuff that COULD POSSIBLY be true and expect people to readily accept it. You have to assess what others might suspect as delusional.

Just so you are aware, I kind of do that on purpose just to lure idiots like you into a false sense of security.

You don't see any creep factor there, do you? I'll bet you forgot to pray with the Holy Spirit before devising that strategy.

Now, show my elementary errors in logic and explain with detail what those errors are and why those are errors.

Not necessary at this point.

In other words, you can't refute a word I said on the topic and know it

In what other words? I hadn't yet replied. Say, are you attempting to be passive-aggressive?

, so you're hoping that I can't see though your passive-aggressive banter for what it really is.

Crystal, virtually everyone can see through you. Ask them. I think you mean "blather".

You and your buddies earn everything you get and more.

Rubbish. There are interpersonal standards and you flout them constantly to suit your bizarre sense of self. And to avoid that self, really.

Sorry, but even the most basic commentary will tell you that the most common and popular interpretation of this is about Christian brother and sisters in Christ.

Wrong.

Second, respect is earned and you haven't earned respect because you keep trying to passive-aggressively brow beat myself and those you disagree with, while of course, condemning the very behavior you are taking part in.

Subsequent repetition does't make it so, Number Two.

Therefore you don't deserve respect and thus, you don't get it.

How does one spell pfffft?

Is that so hard for you to process?

Quite simple.

Now get to work Sarahb, show me errors or are you also a Jesus myther

Well, there certainly is a whole lotta myth surrounding that name.

and think such stupid things as there were no Christian founding fathers

You mean USA founding fathers? Sure there were, not many who would recognize Christianity as it is today, probably. None who would recognize YOU as a Christian, I'd wager.

or that there were no paintings of Jesus depicted as a human before the 8th century?

Never heard that before. Religionists can be such a legalistic bunch; so maybe.

[Doug Shaver]

A quick trip to the Jesusneverexisted website would set him and anyone else straight who thinks this fictional character actuallly existed.

Your confidence in that Web site is misplaced. I happen to agree that Jesus' historical existence is unlikely, but the arguments to that conclusion that are presented on jesusneverexisted.com are mostly garbage. That is particularly so if the site's author thinks he has proven, as you seem to think he has, that Jesus' nonexistence is not just a likelihood but a certainty.

[Vansmack51]

Lilpixieofterror,
I’m not going to bother with the quote option. I’m just going to answer the major points you’re trying to make. You’ve never been to a Christian college and I graduated from one. We’re both from California. That’s almost interesting. I said many Christian apologists such as Harold Slusher, Carl Baugh, Kelly Seagraves and Ricard Bliss got their “credentials” from Christian diploma mills. I didn’t say anything about where any scholars got their credentials. I didn’t imply that you claimed to be a pastor. I could tell you weren’t from the tone of your posts. I don’t really doubt you’re in college but you implied that I was uneducated and now you’re accusing me of making ad hominems, genetic fallacies, and ranting. No, it’s called a taste of your own medicine. I don’t like stooping to that level. I’m sure it hurt me more than it did you.

I already knew you had no rebuttal to the Robert Taylor quote by your initial reaction to it. I could tell it agitated you in the same way I can tell being called a “fundy” really bothers you. I don’t believe George Washington was much of a Christian. He attended an Episcopal Church but refused to take communion there. I grew up just outside D.C and near Mount Vernon. I know a lot about the founding of our nation and old George and his property. History knows nothing of any Christian democracies. All Christian nations have been theocracies most of them backwards and brutal. Nazi Germany and South Africa come to mind. I’m quite sure if the majority of our founders had been Christians we would not have religious freedom, freedom of speech and our Constitution would not read the way it does. The religious requirement laws of the first colonies would still be in place and we would likely be nothing more than another backwards Third World theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

I love your comment about Paine’s criticism of the story in Matthew which claims that dead people came back to life, unburied themselves and then walked into the city of Jerusalem and appeared to many other people. Paine thought, as any rational person would, that the story is not true. Yet you think it’s Thomas Paine who seems to fail at logic and thinking and not the people who believe this ridiculous story for which there exists not a shred of evidence. And then I get “It's too bad that I know what I'm talking about and you don't and...”

I know Zondervan prints a lot of NIV Bibles. I have one. It’s a really nice large print Bible. One of about 15 English Bibles I own. I know Christian apologetics is a huge cottage industry. My point is that the general public doesn’t buy these other books Zondervan publishes.The overwhelming majority of people who are interested in apologetics or the Bible are Fundamentalist Christians. Most atheists don’t give a hoot about either subject so it’s no wonder atheists and skeptics have a hard time getting published. The average atheist, and I know him and her well, just doesn’t care what Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or Bart Ehrman have to say about the subject of religion, evolution, creationism, apolgetics or the Bible. I’m surprised they sell as many books as they do. I can’t sell one. You can say that’s because my “research abilities are this poor” but if you read some of my book you would see I’ve studied the text of the Bible very carefully.

I don’t care what you or anyone else thinks about the relevance of scholars who do not believe Jesus existed. I don’t think Christian scholars can possibly be relevant for the simple fact that if they’re Christians they love Jesus. We can’t be objective about the things and people we love. Therefore Christian scholars cannot possibly be relevant in a critical study or discussion of the subject of the existence of Jesus. And neither can you.

Now you’re a college student. Yet you’re telling me you have no way of finding out who the Bible schoilar was that wrote the introduction to Luke’s Gospel in the NRSV Study Bible. Is that what you are saying? In other words if it’s not on the Internet you can’t find it. Does your school or neighborhood back home have this place where there are a lot of books and the word “Library” somewhere on the door? Never mind I’ll save you the trouble of looking for the place. David L. Tiede, Ph.D. I would guess you’ve never heard of him. I haven’t. So since you don’t know who he is, and that is the standard by which we all must measure the relevance of any Bible scholar, Dr. Tiede must absolutely be disregarded. Right? Even though he’s the President and Professor of New Testament at Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary in St. Paul Minnesota.

This comment is just rich: “Assertions without evidence can be dismissed as such until you can present otherwise.” Do you think I don’t know that is exactly what at least one atheist has told you when you made the baseless assertion that there is a God? Copycat.

Perhaps you can name a scientific experiment that has proved miracles are possible. Can you even make an argument that can’t be turned on its head and used against you? That would be a miracle. I’ve heard of Okham’s Razor. My position that the gospel stories are just what they appear to be: fiction, doesn’t require a belief in the supernatural and a bunch of far-fetched stories. Your position does. Therefore my position is to be preferrred according to Okham’s Razor. Wow! This is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.

Now of course everyone is born with a lack of any beliefs. However that includes a lack of belief in God. So atheism is the natural or default position on the subject of God. The proof of this is that unbelief is the natural position to take on any subject until something has been proved. The existence of God has not been proved. Therefore the natural position to take on the existence of God is unbelief or atheism. Why there even has to be a name for people who reject what has never been universally accepted as being true in the first place is beyond me.

So you’re a theist and you accept evolution. Again, neither one of us believes the Bible so why are we arguing? How come you’re not open-minded enough to understand why some people think Jesus did not or may not have existed?

I listened to the shows Hank Hanegraaff did in July with William Dembski discussing Dembski’s new book. The book addresses the question of how the “fall” could be responsible for evil and suffering if there was evil and suffering in the animal and I guess plant kingdoms before the fall. I’m wondering what the Christians who accept evolution or old Earth creationists think about this. Neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything on the subject of Jesus’ existence. So would you care to tell me what you think of Dembski’s book or at least the premise? Maybe on a different or new thread? Or we can keep arguing if that’s what you want to do. However no one, including you, has even tried to present me with even a shred evidence for the existence of Jesus but only arguments. No amount of argumentation will make Jesus exist. You might as well give up.

Now twebber you did exactly as I thought you would. You shrunk from my challenge as I predicted you would in my last post. You completely ignored my request that you cut all your double talk and nonsense and present me with your best evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed. Instead of doing that, you went right on yammering about Herodotus, history writing, that the fantasy novel known as Acts proves Paul actually existed (no the Bible isn’t true just because it says it is), Bart Ehrman and I don’t knoiw what else and I don’t care. I called. Either show your hand or fold. You think I’m providing entertainment? My friends laughed pretty hard when you fulfilled my prophecy [that there were no Christians up to my challenge and they would all avoid the subject]. Thanks for the laughs and for proving me to be correct once again. I’m not going to bother responding to your post because you were too chicken to respond to my challenge. I’ll give you one more chance. No more double talk, no more nonsense. You know when someone calls checkmate it is considered rude to keep playing after all hope is lost. Checkmate.

[fm93]

I don't want to intrude on other people's discussions, but a few things in that post caught my attention.

History knows nothing of any Christian democracies. All Christian nations have been theocracies most of them backwards and brutal. Nazi Germany and South Africa come to mind.

Seeing how much of Europe has consisted of Christian democracies (even if they are secularized now), your above quote is, quite frankly, utterly absurd and blatantly false. The same goes for your statement about Nazi Germany. Hitler developed plans to destroy Christianity, and the Roman Catholic Church opposed him. When you speak with such certainty and yet say such obviously ridiculous statements, which fly in the face of facts and logic, it's a bit difficult for people to take you seriously.

I don’t care what you or anyone else thinks about the relevance of scholars who do not believe Jesus existed.

Substitute a few words, and you have the following statement:

"I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about the relevance of scholars who do not believe in young-earth creationism."

Or, "I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about the relevance of scholars who do not believe the Holocaust was a myth."

Do you think those statements are acceptable? Clearly, the relevance DOES matter, and it is an issue you ought to care about. If you had never read any of Kent Hovind's material, but you were aware that he's rejected by the entire scientific community, that should be a telling factor.

I don’t think Christian scholars can possibly be relevant for the simple fact that if they’re Christians they love Jesus. We can’t be objective about the things and people we love. Therefore Christian scholars cannot possibly be relevant in a critical study or discussion of the subject of the existence of Jesus. And neither can you.

This is so blatantly wrong on so many levels that it's sad. Am I unable to make objective comments about my sister's performance in various walks of life simply because I love my sister? Is an American scholar of American History irrelevant for the simple fact that if he's American he loves America? If so, then aren't virtually all scholars of all subjects irrelevant, since they presumably study that which they love and are highly interested in? And did you ever consider the possibility that some scholars started with an objective view of Jesus, and what they found led them to love him?

This comment is just rich: “Assertions without evidence can be dismissed as such until you can present otherwise.” Do you think I don’t know that is exactly what at least one atheist has told you when you made the baseless assertion that there is a God? Copycat.

Lilpixieofterror has spend more than five years on this forum reading arguments for and debating the existence of God. She HAS presented evidence, so it's NOT a baseless assertion.

Perhaps you can name a scientific experiment that has proved miracles are possible.

Science can't confirm OR disprove the possibility of miracles. That issue can be resolved only through philosophy.

Can you even make an argument that can’t be turned on its head and used against you?

Can YOU? Christ-mythers generally argue that the evidence for Jesus' existence is too scant or too late. Yet compared to the evidence for other figures, the sources mentioning Jesus are abundant and early. So if the sources about Jesus are to be discounted and throw Jesus' existence into doubt, then the existence of many of the world's major figures (such as Buddha, Muhammad, Alexander the Great) must also be discounted. And, of course, the typical atheist's favorite card to play: the problem of evil/divine atrocities. For them to call an action immoral,it seems that there must be some objective standard that determines right and wrong. If not, then the argument has no substance, because anything could be called immoral or moral. But it seems that if atheism is true, and that everything can ultimately be reduced to non-sentient, purely physical events, there's no such standard. If anything, the problem of evil is a positive argument for theism, because it presupposes the existence of an objective standard, which theism supports and atheism does not. So it'd actually be the atheist who struggles with making arguments that can't be used against them.

My position that the gospel stories are just what they appear to be: fiction, doesn’t require a belief in the supernatural and a bunch of far-fetched stories. Your position does. Therefore my position is to be preferrred according to Okham’s Razor.

And here's yet another argument that can be turned against you. The message that Jesus was the Messiah and was crucified was always central to the gospel. This is what Paul and the other apostles preached to ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (and although you apparently doubt Paul's existence, you surely don't doubt the existence of the apostles. If you do, then you're literally a bigger conspiracy theorist than Holocaust deniers and those who believe the 9/11 attacks were part of an inside government job). However, crucifixion was perceived by the Jews, Greeks and Romans as the utmost shaming device. It was a method of execution used to shame criminals until they had no honor left. The Messiah, however, was inherently an honorable figure, the king of the Jews. So if you wanted to fabricate a story about a mythical person named Jesus and attempt to convince people that he was their Most Honorable Messiah, the last thing you'd want to do was claim that he died via crucifixion. It would've been much easier to say that Jesus died in an honorable way. And yet the evangelists never strayed from this preaching. The simplest explanation for this fact is that they were simply stating what happened, which means that Jesus did indeed exist and was indeed crucified. Occam's Razor therefore supports this idea.

Wow! This is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.

Except that you have no ammo in that rifle, and the scope is useless, since you've made it clear that you're blind to historical facts. It's therefore not surprising that, in your blindness, you don't realize that those are actually bulls, and they're charging right at you.

So you’re a theist and you accept evolution. Again, neither one of us believes the Bible so why are we arguing?

She does believe the Bible. She's smart enough to engage in deep study and thinking, unlike you and many fundamentalists, who interpret everything through modern Western eyes and takes a ridiculously naive view of inspiration. You seem to think that the first chapter of Genesis is to be taken as a strict scientific treatise on cosmology, and that the message that the author wanted to convey was the age of the Earth. However, the initial readers of the text wouldn't at all be interested in knowing the age of the Earth. They were vastly more concerned with knowing about God's nature, powers, and how they could please him. In fact, they were vastly more concerned with getting enough food to survive than with knowing the age of the Earth. The author of the first few chapters of Genesis, then, would be trying to convey spiritual messages rather than scientific ones. It isn't even commenting on scientific issues. As an analogy, the novel Animal Farm would be blatantly wrong if Orwell's message was scientific, since animals obviously can't talk. However, his message wasn't one of science, but rather, an allegorical explanation of the Russian Revolution. So, just as I believe the message of Animal Farm and also believe that animals don't talk and can't overthrow humans, Lilpixie and I can believe the Bible's message and also believe the theory of evolution.

How come you’re not open-minded enough to understand why some people think Jesus did not or may not have existed?

For the same reason that biologists and historians aren't "open-minded" enough to understand why some people think the Earth is merely 6,000 years old or that the Holocaust never happened. They do understand why people hold those ideas. They also understand that the evidence stands completely against those ideas. And so when people continue to hold ideas of a non-existent Holocaust and a non-existent Jesus despite all the evidence being to the contrary, you have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, it's actually the Holocaust deniers and Christ mythers who are being close-minded.

Now blah blah blah [insert more ignorance, presumption and arrogance here] You think I’m providing entertainment?

Oh, you're providing entertainment all right. You can rest assured of THAT.

[Raphael]

South Africa

Ummm, South Africa has been a Republic since1961 and before then it was a Constitutional Monarchy (and also known as the USA, the Union of South Africa), and prior to that a hodge podge of small kingdoms and colonies. It was never a theocracy.
When you've spent years of primary school history learning about the Groot Trek, the Zulu wars, the Anglo-boer wars and the history leading up all the way to Nelson Mandela becoming President (when I was in High School) try agin.

[Tassman]

Ummm, South Africa has been a Republic since1961 and before then it was a Constitutional Monarchy (and also known as the USA, the Union of South Africa), and prior to that a hodge podge of small kingdoms and colonies. It was never a theocracy.
When you've spent years of primary school history learning about the Groot Trek, the Zulu wars, the Anglo-boer wars and the history leading up all the way to Nelson Mandela becoming President (when I was in High School) try agin.

Perhaps so, but South Africa was the worst perpetrator of racialism in the developed world and its notorious apartheid was supported and justified by Christianity, notably the Dutch Reform Church:

“Christianity became a powerful influence in South Africa, often uniting large numbers of people in a common faith. In the twentieth century, however, several Christian churches actively promoted racial divisions through the political philosophy of apartheid. The largest of these denominations was the Dutch Reformed Church…….”It was to South Africa what the Southern Baptist Convention – the largest Protestant body in the world – was to slavery and racial divisions in the US.

http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/53.htm

[seanD]

I don’t care what you or anyone else thinks about the relevance of scholars who do not believe Jesus existed. I don’t think Christian scholars can possibly be relevant for the simple fact that if they’re Christians they love Jesus. We can’t be objective about the things and people we love. Therefore Christian scholars cannot possibly be relevant in a critical study or discussion of the subject of the existence of Jesus. And neither can you.

You have such long freakin posts that it's impossible to address all your points, but this one stood out the most (or at least as far as I got reading your post). Probably all of the skeptics I've encountered on this board are former Christian, and I'm sure this is true of yourself. Most apostates describe very bitter experiences leaving their faith for whatever reason, whether intellectual or something they were emotionally hurt by, experiences that are very similar to an emotional breakup with a significant other. Often times I see this emotion displayed in various ways when I interact with them on this board, if they don't just outright admit this to me. So I often equate their experience to a breakup of a relationship when I compare one's objective evaluation of Christianity between a practicing Christian and an apostate. In this case, a negative evaluation is much more bias and subjective than a positive one. IOW, I would much more readily trust the objectivity of Susan who wrote a biography about her current significant other, John, than I would trust the objectivity of a book written by John's ex, Pam, after John had an emotional breakup with Pam. Both Susan and Pam have natural bias, but I would expect the agenda of Pam to impact her evaluation the most.

[Jaecp]

Lilpixieofterror has spend more than five years on this forum reading arguments for and debating the existence of God. She HAS presented evidence, so it's NOT a baseless assertion.

I sometimes wish there were more threads about the positive evidence for Christianity

There are a couple threads on the first page that are about certain aspects of Christianity, but the only one that is directly about it is a kinda wonky post about the universes intelligibility