Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those who would live their lives "indoors" with the blinds figuratively drawn, even trees and rain could be considered myth. Nothing can be seen, experienced, and understood when the person takes no valid action or effort.
Continue on willfully "indoors", blind, and shut out. The responsibility of change is on you, not others. Only you can choose to go "outside" and learn, but your pride will keep you locked up and blinded. Have fun.
Now try your analogy with the Easter Hare instead of trees and rain.
How about a bet?
We put your name out there alongside any name on that list, and we'll see who has more cred as an authority.
HOWBOWDAH?!
Please produce your awards and best-selling works compared to those you criticize.
You are like a Little League team from Nowhereville, that has a losing record....throwing shade on The NY Yankees.
Why, I could simply refer to those who are qualified AND believe Jesus probably did not exist, or that they have enough reason to doubt his existence? I too can use argument from authority.
But I do not need to, because Paul and Hebrews, the earliest Christian works still say Jesus was a divine being (Hebrews), or the first born angel made from the same God material, and who created the universe (Paul) who spoke through the prophets, or was seen in visions (Paul), and Hebrews says Jesus was the priest in a heavenly temple not built by human hands, and his one and only sacrifice was in heaven, not on earth. It arguably also says Jesus was never on earth. That is not a historical person being described.
I do not need to be an authority, I have the actual evidence from what the first Christians actually wrote, and I have the ability to read it in it's original language. And you need to deal with that evidence instead of the my gang is bigger than your gang. Because my gang is gaining ground, there are now more relevant historians thinking that maybe Jesus did not exist.
Is Jesus of the Bible fictional? Jesus has been the most difficult to prove. But a lot of people and places in the Bible are real, for a fact. King Herod (born 73 BCE southern Palestine. —died March/April, 4 BCE, Jericho, Judaea) was real for a fact. The palaces, fortresses and cities he built have been identified by archaeologists. He rebuilt the Temple of Jerusalem (parts still standing today).
Yes, some of them are real places, but lots of fiction books are also set in real places.
Quote:
integrating a 'fake' character into real places with astonishing literary skill, that can fool the masses into worship.
There's nothing really that astonishing about it. Some of the authors that wrote nothing but a whole bunch of unintelligible and unbelievably strange books.....Revelation is a good example of the magic mushroom or whatever the drug of choice was then.
I feel that there are not deities. The threats of hell and total lies that were told to control the masses.....is what controlled and is still controlling believers. It's frightening that a book from 2000 years ago is still controlling "the masses". It says right there in that book that nothing should be worshiped except the Christian god. Seems to me the worshiping is more of the ancient book rather than a god.
It worries me because there is so much hatred and animosity towards non-believers or people of different religions. Shoot, with Christianity there is so much in-fighting and denominations and churches splitting or closing it's not looking too good for Christianity like Thrillobyte said.
Why, I could simply refer to those who are qualified AND believe Jesus probably did not exist, or that they have enough reason to doubt his existence? I too can use argument from authority.
But I do not need to, because Paul and Hebrews, the earliest Christian works still say Jesus was a divine being (Hebrews), or the first born angel made from the same God material, and who created the universe (Paul) who spoke through the prophets, or was seen in visions (Paul), and Hebrews says Jesus was the priest in a heavenly temple not built by human hands, and his one and only sacrifice was in heaven, not on earth. It arguably also says Jesus was never on earth. That is not a historical person being described.
I do not need to be an authority, I have the actual evidence from what the first Christians actually wrote, and I have the ability to read it in it's original language. And you need to deal with that evidence instead of the my gang is bigger than your gang. Because my gang is gaining ground, there are now more relevant historians thinking that maybe Jesus did not exist.
HOWBOWDAH?!
Hey Harry how many languages do you speak? Really like this post but.....HOWBOWDAH?
It's more like HOWBOWDUH.
Why, I could simply refer to those who are qualified AND believe Jesus probably did not exist, or that they have enough reason to doubt his existence? I too can use argument from authority.
But I do not need to, because Paul and Hebrews, the earliest Christian works still say Jesus was a divine being (Hebrews), or the first born angel made from the same God material, and who created the universe (Paul) who spoke through the prophets, or was seen in visions (Paul), and Hebrews says Jesus was the priest in a heavenly temple not built by human hands, and his one and only sacrifice was in heaven, not on earth. It arguably also says Jesus was never on earth. That is not a historical person being described.
I do not need to be an authority, I have the actual evidence from what the first Christians actually wrote, and I have the ability to read it in it's original language. And you need to deal with that evidence instead of the my gang is bigger than your gang. Because my gang is gaining ground, there are now more relevant historians thinking that maybe Jesus did not exist.
HOWBOWDAH?!
The question is not if Christ existed...it's if Jesus existed.
I don't care, myself...the mojo is the same, regardless. I've even stated that I see it as even more impressive if the Jesus character in The Bible is fully a invention of literary artistic genius.
I view The Bible as a metaphorical and allegorical work of literary art...and among, if not the most, epic and prolific writings of all time.
But...whether the Jesus character was actually based upon a person that existed, is a common question.
And...as per the determination of the majority of scholars and others that have done the most specific and focused research on it...that character is based upon a itinerant Rabbi that was a person who did exist at that time.
Certainly, reason would dictate that I defer to them...especially over a few Anti-Religion keyboard warrior nobodies.
Unless you can show credentials and citations that would put you in their status...the suggestion that you would be a superior authority to turn to for that answer has very little merit.
As I said...I'd be more impressed if he was a fully created character...but based upon what I can see is the conglomerate of research work done on it, the majority consensus is that the character was based upon a real person.
You all are working off a obsessive biased agenda to discredit and insult Christians and Christianity...and I know that. And that is a big factor to whether I view you as credible.
Let no one deceive himself.
If anyone among you considers himself wise in this age,
let him become a fool, so as to become wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God,
for it is written:
God catches the wise in their own ruses
You do realize this is Paul (1 Corinthians) saying science, logic, mathematics, philosophy, debate, all rational tools, are for fools, whereas interpreting scripture and having revelations is true wisdom?
You are applying expectations that apply to a more modern era and more widespread awareness of what is happening in the world around us. We are talking about something that happened in a primitive era in a very remote backwater of the vast Roman Empire, Thill. Historians at the time were focused on the big main accomplishments of the Empire not on some piddling backwater. It was not until much later when Christians made such an impact that it eventually became an issue.
There were historians (Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Justus of Tiberias, Nicolaus of Damascus, etc) interested in this cultural cross roads between East and West, and North and South, sorry, I meant 'piddling backwater'; an area where Hellenistic and Jewish philosophical ideas were being discussed, an area where an attempt was made for universal education.
I agree the 'goat herder' label applied by other atheists is ignorant, but so is your post. Whoever wrote the first century AD material found in the New Testament were not only educated people, their education was the classical education of the elite.
TRUTH: There isn't a shred of evidence the apostles even lived, much less died for their faith. Not a single secular historian in any century up to 500 CE even mentions the apostles. The truth is history says none of the apostles existed. They, like Jesus, are mythical creations like characters in a novel. It would be impossible to trace a single event involving them if historians don't even mention them. Churchmen like Sean MacDowell who wrote a book on the apostles' demise (and made a lot of $$$$ on it) relies wholly on church tradition--legends that arose over the centuries about Jesus and his apostles--as his source material for his book. It would be much like using the 7 volumes of Harry Potter to determine what happened to Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger.
This is yet another example of how the Church used lies, deceit, fabrications and speculation to perpetuate a myth that benefited their religion.
Once again, I am a skeptic and I have the TRUTH on my side.
Clearly the apostles did exist, Paul wrote about them, and no doubt some of them would have died for their belief. That does not mean their belief was true.
I presume you are referring to the traditional claims about the disciples, in which you are correct. None of the accounts of their deaths involve them dying for their belief in Jesus, and according to the accounts, some of them died 3 times.
Thrillobyte is saying that he knows more than the expert historians on the existence of Jesus. The historians are vouching for Jesus as having existed, not necessarily that he was divine. Thrillobyte was claiming that Jesus did not exist.
To be fair, many of those expert historians would agree with some of what Thrillobyte wrote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really like this post but.....HOWBOWDAH? 
