LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

How many writings from Cesar?

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did.

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

Martyrdom for what you believe is a strong indicator that you truly believe. However, martyrdom for something that you know firsthand to be true, is perhaps the strongest indicator that what you are saying IS true. Paul had first hand knowledge of his own meeting with Jesus and his conversion. But Paul also was in as good a position to know what the disciples witnessed directly, having had "dinner table" conversations with them. So if we were to assume Paul did not already know of Jesus or his crucifixion before he met the disciples (a good argument can be made that he did), still, Paul would have very, very likely known the veracity of the existence of Jesus, and his crucifixion, death, and resurrection through his contact with the disciples.

So, going back to the original point, the reason for saying all this - you had asked for historical evidence for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion. I asked why you discount the bible as evidence, when we have the undisputed letters of Paul that give historical attestation to those facts, in a manner that really, is unmatched by anything we have from ancient history - written within a decade of events, contact with first hand witnesses, etc. Do you still now say that Paul's testimony is NOT acceptable as historical evidence for what you asked? Isn't it highly likely that Jesus existed and was crucified, given what we have from Paul?

You know it's highly likely. You're just not being sincere, and you're being intentionally obtuse about it.

---

You are picking an argument just for arguments sake - as I have said extensively before, I personally believe the most probable scenario is a literal Jesus existed.

I will grant that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him, that he truly believed he saw Jesus, and so did the disciples%85. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the OP as it has nothing to do with why I do not believe in a God.

If this is your best evidence (Paul wrote some letters because he had a revelation/experience) for God, let's just move on.

---

No, you lost track of the discussion - you said that you believed it more probable than not that Jesus was a real figure, but then you backtracked and said you weren't confident in that assertion, and even seemed to suggest that those who believe Jesus was a myth had equal validity to their argument.

So, I am pointing out the exceptional historical value of undisputed documents from Paul, a contemporaneous figure who had direct contact with first-hand eyewitnesses regarding the facts in question here, whose writings undoubtedly affirm the historical Jesus. To any intellectually honest person, this should heavily, heavily outweigh any current-day speculation from scholars about Jesus being a myth, made from the comforts of their university offices 2000 years after the fact.

Don't you agree?

---

I did not backtrack - I will again assert that I believe it is more probable than not that Jesus was a real person, but am not confident in that assertion. I am not able to put a numerical value to it, but for the sake of the conversation, let's say I personally think it's ~70% likely that Jesus existed literally. That is more probable than not, without being confident (The statistician in me marks anything under 95% as not confident)

While the undisputed documents from Paul are an important source of information about the historical Jesus, they are not the only source, and must be evaluated in the context of the broader historical record. It's important to recognize that scholars who question the historicity of Jesus are not necessarily engaging in "speculation" or denying the value of the historical record. Rather, they are engaging in critical analysis and evaluation of the available evidence, using established historical methods and standards to assess the reliability of the sources.

---

But here's what those scholars who say Jesus is a myth are up against - a first century source who is a contemporary of Jesus who had first hand contact with direct eyewitnesses to Jesus, and who is the virtually undisputed writer of works written within a decade from the fact; who had 180 degrees turned from a persecutor to believer in Jesus, and who was heavily persecuted and killed for it.

Do the scholars you describe have anything close to that to supply them with the myth argument? If so, let's hear what you consider to be their strongest argument or piece of evidence, evidence that you apparently believe offsets Paul enough that it sways you a certain percentage their way.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

How many writings from Cesar?

---

Do you want me to count the number of surviving books/letters/speeches of Ceasar?

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

Yet, one of them lives in the hearts of mankind all over the world unto this day, and the other is only thought of when one wants pizza. Amazing, the profound impact a man we don't know even existed has had, eh?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did.

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

Martyrdom for what you believe is a strong indicator that you truly believe. However, martyrdom for something that you know firsthand to be true, is perhaps the strongest indicator that what you are saying IS true. Paul had first hand knowledge of his own meeting with Jesus and his conversion. But Paul also was in as good a position to know what the disciples witnessed directly, having had "dinner table" conversations with them. So if we were to assume Paul did not already know of Jesus or his crucifixion before he met the disciples (a good argument can be made that he did), still, Paul would have very, very likely known the veracity of the existence of Jesus, and his crucifixion, death, and resurrection through his contact with the disciples.

So, going back to the original point, the reason for saying all this - you had asked for historical evidence for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion. I asked why you discount the bible as evidence, when we have the undisputed letters of Paul that give historical attestation to those facts, in a manner that really, is unmatched by anything we have from ancient history - written within a decade of events, contact with first hand witnesses, etc. Do you still now say that Paul's testimony is NOT acceptable as historical evidence for what you asked? Isn't it highly likely that Jesus existed and was crucified, given what we have from Paul?

You know it's highly likely. You're just not being sincere, and you're being intentionally obtuse about it.

---

You are picking an argument just for arguments sake - as I have said extensively before, I personally believe the most probable scenario is a literal Jesus existed.

I will grant that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him, that he truly believed he saw Jesus, and so did the disciples%85. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the OP as it has nothing to do with why I do not believe in a God.

If this is your best evidence (Paul wrote some letters because he had a revelation/experience) for God, let's just move on.

---

No, you lost track of the discussion - you said that you believed it more probable than not that Jesus was a real figure, but then you backtracked and said you weren't confident in that assertion, and even seemed to suggest that those who believe Jesus was a myth had equal validity to their argument.

So, I am pointing out the exceptional historical value of undisputed documents from Paul, a contemporaneous figure who had direct contact with first-hand eyewitnesses regarding the facts in question here, whose writings undoubtedly affirm the historical Jesus. To any intellectually honest person, this should heavily, heavily outweigh any current-day speculation from scholars about Jesus being a myth, made from the comforts of their university offices 2000 years after the fact.

Don't you agree?

---

I did not backtrack - I will again assert that I believe it is more probable than not that Jesus was a real person, but am not confident in that assertion. I am not able to put a numerical value to it, but for the sake of the conversation, let's say I personally think it's ~70% likely that Jesus existed literally. That is more probable than not, without being confident (The statistician in me marks anything under 95% as not confident)

While the undisputed documents from Paul are an important source of information about the historical Jesus, they are not the only source, and must be evaluated in the context of the broader historical record. It's important to recognize that scholars who question the historicity of Jesus are not necessarily engaging in "speculation" or denying the value of the historical record. Rather, they are engaging in critical analysis and evaluation of the available evidence, using established historical methods and standards to assess the reliability of the sources.

---

But here's what those scholars who say Jesus is a myth are up against - a first century source who is a contemporary of Jesus who had first hand contact with direct eyewitnesses to Jesus, and who is the virtually undisputed writer of works written within a decade from the fact; who had 180 degrees turned from a persecutor to believer in Jesus, and who was heavily persecuted and killed for it.

Do the scholars you describe have anything close to that to supply them with the myth argument? If so, let's hear what you consider to be their strongest argument or piece of evidence, evidence that you apparently believe offsets Paul enough that you waver.

---

Can you please get to the point behind this? I have already granted you the premise that Jesus was both a real person AND Paul genuinely believed he had a revelation of Jesus and turned his life around.

I am curious - there are even better documented testimonies of radical transformation than Paul's. The Quran has been preserved, and it's followers are clearly extremely passionate and radical about it's message. Joseph Smith claimed to have received revelations from God & Jesus (just a few generations ago). I'm assuming you also follow Islam and LDS teachings?

I am interested in evidence for God. If our criteria is "someone wrote down letters after an experience", then we'd have to accept the truth of every single religion.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Given that all of the listed scholars are from the past ~2 centuries I think it's safe to say that they did not know Jesus personally.

The earliest of Paul's letters were approximately 20-30 years after Jesus' death, but what I find fascinating about Paul is that he supposedly spent a few weeks with some of the disciples, yet never mentions any of Jesus' miracles or sayings in any of his letters. You'd think raising Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine would be something shared at the dinner table.

---

Ok, but you're diverting from the point: would Paul's letters be a reliable indicator of the historical Jesus, his life, crucifixion, and resurrection? Why or why not?

I'm purely speculating, but he probably felt he only had the authority to write about HIS encounter with Jesus, and preach based on his knowledge of the Torah and how Jesus was the promised Messiah, rather than rely on hearsay, being that he never witnessed what the disciples did.

But also consider that it is interesting, how he spent a few weeks with the disciples, and then kept on preaching about Jesus, his crucifixion, and resurrection. No doubt that if any of those things weren't true, that would have come up at the dinner table as well.

---

Yes, Paul's letters must absolutely be considered when consolidating 1st Century written documentation of Jesus.

We'd first need to choose which letters to use as evidence, as many were potentially not written by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, the Epistles, etc).

---

No scholar doubts the authenticity of Romans, Corinthians, Phillipians, Thessalonians, Philemon. Shall we start there?

---

I would avoid blanket statements like that, but sure - seems fair to me.

---

So if in the letters you believe are attributed to Paul, since it is clear that Paul believes Jesus existed, that he was crucified and died, and that he rose again, what is the likelihood that a Pharisee and contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked directly with those disciples, would be believing and preaching about a mythical, non-existent figure, and getting beaten, jailed, and eventually killed for doing so, while never wavering?

---

There are thousands of examples of people being martyred while holding steadfast in their beliefs. Just because someone believes something, does not make it true.

To answer your question, I have no idea what the likelihood is, nor do I think we can put a number to it.

---

Martyrdom for what you believe is a strong indicator that you truly believe. However, martyrdom for something that you know firsthand to be true, is perhaps the strongest indicator that what you are saying IS true. Paul had first hand knowledge of his own meeting with Jesus and his conversion. But Paul also was in as good a position to know what the disciples witnessed directly, having had "dinner table" conversations with them. So if we were to assume Paul did not already know of Jesus or his crucifixion before he met the disciples (a good argument can be made that he did), still, Paul would have very, very likely known the veracity of the existence of Jesus, and his crucifixion, death, and resurrection through his contact with the disciples.

So, going back to the original point, the reason for saying all this - you had asked for historical evidence for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion. I asked why you discount the bible as evidence, when we have the undisputed letters of Paul that give historical attestation to those facts, in a manner that really, is unmatched by anything we have from ancient history - written within a decade of events, contact with first hand witnesses, etc. Do you still now say that Paul's testimony is NOT acceptable as historical evidence for what you asked? Isn't it highly likely that Jesus existed and was crucified, given what we have from Paul?

You know it's highly likely. You're just not being sincere, and you're being intentionally obtuse about it.

---

You are picking an argument just for arguments sake - as I have said extensively before, I personally believe the most probable scenario is a literal Jesus existed.

I will grant that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him, that he truly believed he saw Jesus, and so did the disciples%85. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the OP as it has nothing to do with why I do not believe in a God.

If this is your best evidence (Paul wrote some letters because he had a revelation/experience) for God, let's just move on.

---

No, you lost track of the discussion - you said that you believed it more probable than not that Jesus was a real figure, but then you backtracked and said you weren't confident in that assertion, and even seemed to suggest that those who believe Jesus was a myth had equal validity to their argument.

So, I am pointing out the exceptional historical value of undisputed documents from Paul, a contemporaneous figure who had direct contact with first-hand eyewitnesses regarding the facts in question here, whose writings undoubtedly affirm the historical Jesus. To any intellectually honest person, this should heavily, heavily outweigh any current-day speculation from scholars about Jesus being a myth, made from the comforts of their university offices 2000 years after the fact.

Don't you agree?

---

I did not backtrack - I will again assert that I believe it is more probable than not that Jesus was a real person, but am not confident in that assertion. I am not able to put a numerical value to it, but for the sake of the conversation, let's say I personally think it's ~70% likely that Jesus existed literally. That is more probable than not, without being confident (The statistician in me marks anything under 95% as not confident)

While the undisputed documents from Paul are an important source of information about the historical Jesus, they are not the only source, and must be evaluated in the context of the broader historical record. It's important to recognize that scholars who question the historicity of Jesus are not necessarily engaging in "speculation" or denying the value of the historical record. Rather, they are engaging in critical analysis and evaluation of the available evidence, using established historical methods and standards to assess the reliability of the sources.

---

But here's what those scholars who say Jesus is a myth are up against - a first century source who is a contemporary of Jesus who had first hand contact with direct eyewitnesses to Jesus, and who is the virtually undisputed writer of works written within a decade from the fact; who had 180 degrees turned from a persecutor to believer in Jesus, and who was heavily persecuted and killed for it.

Do the scholars you describe have anything close to that to supply them with the myth argument? If so, let's hear what you consider to be their strongest argument or piece of evidence, evidence that you apparently believe offsets Paul enough that you waver.

---

Can you please get to the point behind this? I have already granted you the premise that Jesus was both a real person AND Paul genuinely believed he had a revelation of Jesus and turned his life around.

I am curious - there are even better documented testimonies of radical transformation than Paul's. The Quran has been preserved, and it's followers are clearly extremely passionate and radical about it's message. Joseph Smith claimed to have received revelations from God & Jesus (just a few generations ago). I'm assuming you also follow Islam and LDS teachings?

I am interested in evidence for God. If our criteria is "someone wrote down letters after an experience", then we'd have to accept the truth of every single religion.

---

Isn't my point clear? I'm asking for your strongest evidence he is a myth, strong enough that you think it offsets Paul to where you are unsure.

The Quran and Joseph Smith? Are you serious? We already talked about dying for what you know to be true, vs. for what you passionately believe. And one man's claim (Smith) vs. multiple attestations? And blood taken to preserve the Quran vs.blood given for preserving the belief in Jesus? It's not even a contest.

**Add: and your last paragraph is dishonest. We are talking about Paul in the context of the evidence for Jesus being a real historical figure, not about a proof for God. I've said that over and over.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

How many writings from Cesar?

---

Do you want me to count the number of surviving books/letters/speeches of Ceasar?

---

Trying to find the baseline for your trust, your "reliable", your faith.

You know nothing of the person coming up behind you at the intersection, but you have some degree of faith they want rear-end you. The driver of the oncoming truck you have faith they'll stay on their side of the line. You don't know the airline pilot but you have faith. You don't know the cook but you have faith. You don't know the EMT but you have faith.

It seems to me, faith is a choice. It seems to me, you have chosen something other than faith in Christ.

Ask yourself "what have I chosen"

Choose wisely

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

How many writings from Cesar?

---

Do you want me to count the number of surviving books/letters/speeches of Ceasar?

---

Trying to find the baseline for your trust, your "reliable", your faith.

You know nothing of the person coming up behind you at the intersection, but you have some degree of faith they want rear-end you. The driver of the oncoming truck you have faith they'll stay on their side of the line. You don't know the airline pilot but you have faith. You don't know the cook but you have faith. You don't know the EMT but you have faith.

It seems to me, faith is a choice. It seems to me, you have chosen something other than faith in Christ.

Ask yourself "what have I chosen"

Choose wisely

---

Rational decision-making involves a process of gathering and evaluating evidence, analyzing options, and making informed choices based on the available information. In contrast, faith often involves accepting beliefs or ideas without questioning or critically examining them, and relying on intuition, emotion, or personal experience as a basis for decision-making.

I do not have faith in the pilot, as I have overwhelming empirical evidence of the safety of flights. I can cross verify the thousands of flying hours the pilot has. I can verify their certifications, the safety sign offs for the aircraft, etc.

Can I 100% without a fraction of a doubt conclude that I will arrive safely to my destination? No - but the probability is so high that I am personally comfortable taking the extremely small risk of a disaster.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

The earliest evidence ascribes the Gospels to Matthew (a disciple), Mark (the scribe of Peter), Luke (a Gentile who came along later and talked to people), and John (a disciple). No one has ever pointed to alternative authors. If the early church were simply inventing people to whom to attribute the Gospels, it seems highly unlikely that they would have chosen a hated tax collector, an obscure scribe, a Gentile, and a young teenager. Why not say, for example, that it was Peter's gospel, rather than Mark?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

The earliest evidence ascribes the Gospels to Matthew (a disciple), Mark (the scribe of Peter), Luke (a Gentile who came along later and talked to people), and John (a disciple). No one has ever pointed to alternative authors. If the early church were simply inventing people to whom to attribute the Gospels, it seems highly unlikely that they would have chosen a hated tax collector, an obscure scribe, a Gentile, and a young teenager. Why not say, for example, that it was Peter's gospel, rather than Mark?

---

The earliest surviving copies of the Gospels do not include the titles as we know them today. The first known use of the names in their current form is found in a writing by the church father Irenaeus of Lyons, who lived in the late 2nd century.

BaylorJacket said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

The earliest evidence ascribes the Gospels to Matthew (a disciple), Mark (the scribe of Peter), Luke (a Gentile who came along later and talked to people), and John (a disciple). No one has ever pointed to alternative authors. If the early church were simply inventing people to whom to attribute the Gospels, it seems highly unlikely that they would have chosen a hated tax collector, an obscure scribe, a Gentile, and a young teenager. Why not say, for example, that it was Peter's gospel, rather than Mark?

---

The earliest surviving copies of the Gospels do not include the titles as we know them today. The first known use of the names in their current form is found in a writing by the church father Irenaeus of Lyons, who lived in the late 2nd century.

---

None of which changes anything in my post.

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

So hard to "deconstruct" when facts get in the way.

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

BaylorJacket said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

The earliest evidence ascribes the Gospels to Matthew (a disciple), Mark (the scribe of Peter), Luke (a Gentile who came along later and talked to people), and John (a disciple). No one has ever pointed to alternative authors. If the early church were simply inventing people to whom to attribute the Gospels, it seems highly unlikely that they would have chosen a hated tax collector, an obscure scribe, a Gentile, and a young teenager. Why not say, for example, that it was Peter's gospel, rather than Mark?

---

The earliest surviving copies of the Gospels do not include the titles as we know them today. The first known use of the names in their current form is found in a writing by the church father Irenaeus of Lyons, who lived in the late 2nd century.

---

Papias, about six decades earlier than Irenaeus, tells us that Mark was the interpreter for Peter, and wrote down what Peter preached. Papias also references something called the "Logia" which is a collection of sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew language, which he says was written by Matthew. Whether that is an early form of the gospel, we don't know, but it's interesting nonetheless.

And let's not forget about Paul, who is the undisputed author of letters written within a decade of Jesus, who had direct contact with Jesus' disciples, and whose writings affirm the central claim of the Gospels, regardless of who those authors were.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

He Hate Me said:

---

So hard to "deconstruct" when facts get in the way.

---

You caught me - I deconstructed because I just wanted to sin more.

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

So hard to "deconstruct" when facts get in the way.

---

You caught me - I deconstructed because I just wanted to sin more.

---

Something tells me that is not it.

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

No, I have no doubt. I'm just interested in yours. I know it has nothing to do with your topic of God's existence, but as I already mentioned several times, I'm addressing something different. But look at it this way: perhaps the evidence to God's existence is through Jesus, and so what we're talking about is of central importance.

Everything you said about the gospels is defeatable, and has been defeated repeatedly on this forum, but let's do that another time. Let's narrow down your problem with Paul. Here's what it has come down to: You attack the credibility and reliability of the gospels because you say it's written by non-witnesses, from stories passed down orally, and that there's no name attached to them. But then I give Paul, who claims direct witness, as well as having direct contact with the disciples themselves, and whose writings we do know came from him. So now, your argument becomes "well, Paul may be lying". You see where this is going?

So, let's establish where you are at with your argument against Paul - essentially, you are saying that Paul is an unreliable source for the historicity of Jesus, because his claims can not be proven, that he may have lied. Is that correct? Wasn't Paul meeting the disciples mentioned in Acts, whose author was the "historian of first rank", and also mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter? If you answer anything, at least answer the first question in this paragraph.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22


Again, I ask the question, what has changed?

Why have you chosen differently than before?

---

Copying & pasting my response as I have already answered this:
"What has changed since then is I continued to pull on that thread, studied the Bible seriously, read numerous books on both sides of the argument, reflected & meditated on it, and eventually deconverted"

I collected the empirical evidence and made the (speaking for myself) most rational decision.

---

But that's what I'm trying to evaluate - your rational decision making process behind whether Jesus was a real historical figure or not. You lean that way, but you are not convinced. Given the overwhelming evidence we have in Paul for all the reasons I won't repeat again, I am curious as to what empirical evidence exists you've critically examined, that pulls you the other way. But you seem to be avoiding this.

---

You seem really stuck on this historical Jesus thing - are you perhaps dealing with doubt yourself? The Historical Jesus potentially being myth has 0%, absolutely nothing, to do with why I de-converted from Christianity. It never even crossed my mind and seemed blasphemous.

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question so we can move on.

It's important to approach the question of whether Jesus was a real historical figure with an open mind and a willingness to critically evaluate the evidence available. Therefore, it's reasonable to approach the question of Jesus' existence with a degree of skepticism and a commitment to carefully evaluate all available evidence, including alternative theories and arguments. This includes taking into account potential biases and limitations in the sources of evidence, and understanding the historical and cultural context in which that evidence was produced.

While the writings of Paul are certainly an important source of information about the early Christian movement, they do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I listed out several criteria when evaluating historical texts earlier. If your goal is to gain knowledge of the early Christian movement, I feel confident Paul gives us one (of many) views into this. There were many, many early sects of Christianity that died out that paint an incredibly different picture of Jesus.

If your goal is to conclude the historicity of Jesus, it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on his writings. Paul did not know Jesus the man, nor does he pretend to. Paul has bias just like anyone else, and his claims are unprovable. Let's take for example his claim that he met the disciples. Scholars have long questioned the historicity of these claims and have suggested that they may have been exaggerated or even fabricated by Paul in order to bolster his own authority and credibility within the early Christian movement. Can we prove this either way? Nope.

Beyond Paul, the gospels are not historically reliable. They were written 3-6 decades after Jesus' supposed death by fluent, Greek, unnamed authors. They have numerous contradicting claims that lowers their credibility as painting an accurate and historically true story.

In summary, we have gospels written by anonymous authors filled with contradicting claims, and we have letters written by a man filled with unprovable claims as there is no corroborating evidence. I feel like me giving a ~70% chance Jesus existed is generous.

---

I think you make the same mistake to the other end of people that try to apply post-Enlightenment sentiment to ANE culture. Given broad illiteracy, oral tradition was critical and well practiced. The fact a tradition was not recorded until a few decades later would not have been a concern of an ANE person.

Given the gospels and non-Christian sources, feels odd to question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (I'm speaking in binary terms not to specific facts of his life).

Option 1 is Jesus of Nazareth existed (regardless of any specific theology) and cited by Roman and Jewish sources. Option 2 is a bunch of fishermen from the boondocks made up man and convinced a ton of people to follow him and his teachings at great personal cost. To me at least Option 1 seems much more likely.

BaylorJacket said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

The earliest evidence ascribes the Gospels to Matthew (a disciple), Mark (the scribe of Peter), Luke (a Gentile who came along later and talked to people), and John (a disciple). No one has ever pointed to alternative authors. If the early church were simply inventing people to whom to attribute the Gospels, it seems highly unlikely that they would have chosen a hated tax collector, an obscure scribe, a Gentile, and a young teenager. Why not say, for example, that it was Peter's gospel, rather than Mark?

---

The earliest surviving copies of the Gospels do not include the titles as we know them today. The first known use of the names in their current form is found in a writing by the church father Irenaeus of Lyons, who lived in the late 2nd century.

---

In reading Tom Sawyer, does it help you to know Mark Twain and Samuel Clemons are the same guy? If not, why not? If so, why so?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

JXL said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

The earliest evidence ascribes the Gospels to Matthew (a disciple), Mark (the scribe of Peter), Luke (a Gentile who came along later and talked to people), and John (a disciple). No one has ever pointed to alternative authors. If the early church were simply inventing people to whom to attribute the Gospels, it seems highly unlikely that they would have chosen a hated tax collector, an obscure scribe, a Gentile, and a young teenager. Why not say, for example, that it was Peter's gospel, rather than Mark?

---

The earliest surviving copies of the Gospels do not include the titles as we know them today. The first known use of the names in their current form is found in a writing by the church father Irenaeus of Lyons, who lived in the late 2nd century.

---

In reading Tom Sawyer, does it help you to know Mark Twain and Samuel Clemons are the same guy? If not, why not? If so, why so?

---

There is not enough evidence to cause someone to believe that Mark Twain and Samuel Clemons are the same person. If they are the same person, then they would have signed their writings with both names.

What if it turns out that at least one of the Gospels was in fact written by an eyewitness?

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802874312

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

This needs its own thread

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Thank you for providing your thoughts - I find myself in the same boat. I am agnostic but open to the idea of some form of God existing, but if it does I do not think it looks anything like earthly religions.

The existence of order in the universe is proof of a higher power. It served as a predestination of outcome before it materialized. Matter, energy, gravity, etc. don't create their own physical constants. They all exist within an underlying framework that the inanimate didn't create for itself, but only exists or changes according to the interaction of all the various orders that exist in tandem. The concept of random doesn't actually exist on a long enough time horizon.

cms186 said:

---

Golem said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

cms186 said:

---

There is no evidence that God, or Allah, or whatever Deity someone chooses to believe in exists, but conversely, there isn't any concrete evidence that proves that said Deity doesn't exist, that is precisely why it is called Faith.

I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe that God in his Christian (or Islamic or whatever) form exists, but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to believe that just because I think something is a certain way, that that automatically means it is true, if I'm wrong, then that sucks for me, but I cant change the way I feel about something just because of that.

---

Which agruments for God have you investigated and why did they fail to convince you?

---

I'm sure there are many arguments for (and against) that I haven't encountered, as an agnostic, I certainly believe that some sort of Higher Power could exist, I don't know, I haven't seen anything to convince me that a God (or not one as Christians believe in) is likely, The amount of Evil that goes on in the World, Rape, Murder, Paedophilia etc. and the way that the World seems to be developing into a small elite of Rich people and corporations designed to milk as much as they can from the common man, I fail to believe that an all powerful, beneficent God would let that happen in a World he created.

---

In your view, what actions/reactions must be allowed in a world for true free will to exist? Can the most evil actions be prohibited by God and free will still exist?

Secondarily, if free will cannot exist in a world of constant divine intervention, would you prefer the life of an automaton?

---

There is no clear delineation about what "must be allowed" I feel that my words speak for themselves, God is said to be Omniscient and Omnipotent, therefore he has the ability to know what someone is thinking/intending and has the power to do something about it, theoretically, he could strike down a Serial Killer before they acted, he could cause a Paedophile to drop dead of a Heart Attack before they ever set hands on a Child, etc, but, he doesn't. Yet, there are good, truly innocent people who die before their time every second, I had to watch my Mother writhe in agony as she died from Cancer, a truly good, selfless woman, who volunteered with local Children, who loved her Family and whilst she may not have been particularly religious, was as virtuous as anyone on here. I struggle to believe for a second that a Loving, Caring God as so many Christians love to depict him, allows things like that to happen.

That, to me, indicates one of two things, either, he doesn't care enough about Human Life to do something about these evil people, or he doesn't exist, at least, not in the form our Religions say he does. I choose to think the latter, I thought this way before my Mum died, her sad Death merely cemented my belief.

---

The idea that is hard to grasp is that even the best of us are wicked on some level. It is a lot easier to compare ourselves and our loved ones against other people. We can always find someone that we think is worse than us or worse than our mom or dad and that allows us judge ourselves and loved ones as "good people."

When we judge ourselves against God's law, we do not look good at all. We have all broken every single commandment and fallen short of God's character. That is the bad news. The Good News is that God Himself provided a way back to him through his Sovereign Grace and the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross. The Good News is that no matter how much we suffer for a finite period of time on Earth, we can live forever in paradise where there is no pain or suffering if we will repent of our sin and turn to God for forgiveness.