Life after church & not believing in God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, Jesus’ message seems so credible precisely because it is the ultimate humane approach in our modern, interconnected world. I don’t find religious concepts of favorite peoples or the “other” who is an enemy to be helpful in this age when we insult or even nuke each other with a finger on a button.

I find “love your enemy” and “turn the other cheek” to be great words to live by. Even if Tacitus didn’t bother to write them down or some DCUMer who knows little about Christianity complains that nobody can prove Paul met Jesus or the gospel writers weren’t making it all up.

If Jesus had said something like, “you’re my favorite group of people, now go out and conquer everybody else,” then I’d have doubts. (Obviously I think some historical interpretations of Christianity have been really untrue to the faith.)

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, Jesus’ message seems so credible precisely because it is the ultimate humane approach in our modern, interconnected world. I don’t find religious concepts of favorite peoples or the “other” who is an enemy to be helpful in this age when we insult or even nuke each other with a finger on a button.

I find “love your enemy” and “turn the other cheek” to be great words to live by. Even if Tacitus didn’t bother to write them down or some DCUMer who knows little about Christianity complains that nobody can prove Paul met Jesus or the gospel writers weren’t making it all up.

If Jesus had said something like, “you’re my favorite group of people, now go out and conquer everybody else,” then I’d have doubts. (Obviously I think some historical interpretations of Christianity have been really untrue to the faith.)

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

I never said I didn’t believe in the miracles. I said they were tangential, and that the message was key.

Some of the authors may have known Jesus. Paul said he knew Jesus. There’s also a lot of historical research that suggests a primary source or “ur” document (“Q gospel”) that was written during Jesus’ life or shortly after his death, by people who did know him, and which forms the basis for some of the gospels. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, Jesus’ message seems so credible precisely because it is the ultimate humane approach in our modern, interconnected world. I don’t find religious concepts of favorite peoples or the “other” who is an enemy to be helpful in this age when we insult or even nuke each other with a finger on a button.

I find “love your enemy” and “turn the other cheek” to be great words to live by. Even if Tacitus didn’t bother to write them down or some DCUMer who knows little about Christianity complains that nobody can prove Paul met Jesus or the gospel writers weren’t making it all up.

If Jesus had said something like, “you’re my favorite group of people, now go out and conquer everybody else,” then I’d have doubts. (Obviously I think some historical interpretations of Christianity have been really untrue to the faith.)

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

I never said I didn’t believe in the miracles. I said they were tangential, and that the message was key.

Some of the authors may have known Jesus. Paul said he knew Jesus. There’s also a lot of historical research that suggests a primary source or “ur” document (“Q gospel”) that was written during Jesus’ life or shortly after his death, by people who did know him, and which forms the basis for some of the gospels. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

No. Paul said that Jesus appeared to him after he was crucified. Me too-ism. He wants to interject himself in a big way into the story, since Jesus reportedly appeared to his 12 disciples after his death. Paul said "he even appeared to me," that's from Romans I believe. Paul never met Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

Try to argue like an adult, even when you’re losing the argument. I guess pp’s on the first page were right—this whole thread is a troll thread. (OP says she attended a church for 12 years but doesn’t know the denomination.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

Try to argue like an adult, even when you’re losing the argument. I guess pp’s on the first page were right—this whole thread is a troll thread. (OP says she attended a church for 12 years but doesn’t know the denomination.)

Losing what argument? That the gospels were written by unknown sources who almost certainly were not eyewitnesses to the events - especially the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles like walking on water?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, Jesus’ message seems so credible precisely because it is the ultimate humane approach in our modern, interconnected world. I don’t find religious concepts of favorite peoples or the “other” who is an enemy to be helpful in this age when we insult or even nuke each other with a finger on a button.

I find “love your enemy” and “turn the other cheek” to be great words to live by. Even if Tacitus didn’t bother to write them down or some DCUMer who knows little about Christianity complains that nobody can prove Paul met Jesus or the gospel writers weren’t making it all up.

If Jesus had said something like, “you’re my favorite group of people, now go out and conquer everybody else,” then I’d have doubts. (Obviously I think some historical interpretations of Christianity have been really untrue to the faith.)

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

I never said I didn’t believe in the miracles. I said they were tangential, and that the message was key.

Some of the authors may have known Jesus. Paul said he knew Jesus. There’s also a lot of historical research that suggests a primary source or “ur” document (“Q gospel”) that was written during Jesus’ life or shortly after his death, by people who did know him, and which forms the basis for some of the gospels. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

No. Paul said that Jesus appeared to him after he was crucified. Me too-ism. He wants to interject himself in a big way into the story, since Jesus reportedly appeared to his 12 disciples after his death. Paul said "he even appeared to me," that's from Romans I believe. Paul never met Jesus.

What? “Appear to” means “meet” to most people. And speaking of having personal reasons for twisting a story, you can disbelieve Paul and give his account any nefarious spin you want. But over a billion Christians don’t find it necessary to put a bad interpretation on Paul. So you’ll just have to live with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

Try to argue like an adult, even when you’re losing the argument. I guess pp’s on the first page were right—this whole thread is a troll thread. (OP says she attended a church for 12 years but doesn’t know the denomination.)

Losing what argument? That the gospels were written by unknown sources who almost certainly were not eyewitnesses to the events - especially the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles like walking on water?

This is getting circular. You imagine nasty stories about Paul and discount the gospels, then you go back to your assertions. As pp said above, we could find a daily Post blog, 2000 years old, about Jesus, and you’d call it “fake news” and fall back on theories about schizophrenia that you personally have imagined. I’m done here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

Try to argue like an adult, even when you’re losing the argument. I guess pp’s on the first page were right—this whole thread is a troll thread. (OP says she attended a church for 12 years but doesn’t know the denomination.)

Losing what argument? That the gospels were written by unknown sources who almost certainly were not eyewitnesses to the events - especially the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles like walking on water?

This is getting circular. You imagine nasty stories about Paul and discount the gospels, then you go back to your assertions. As pp said above, we could find a daily Post blog, 2000 years old, about Jesus, and you’d call it “fake news” and fall back on theories about schizophrenia that you personally have imagined. I’m done here.

You can stomp out dramatically all you want, but the PP is correct.

And FYI a contemporaneous written account any one of Jesus' alleged and incredible miracles would be very persuasive indeed. The problem is, there isn't a single one, even though any one of the many would have been gigantic news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

Try to argue like an adult, even when you’re losing the argument. I guess pp’s on the first page were right—this whole thread is a troll thread. (OP says she attended a church for 12 years but doesn’t know the denomination.)

Losing what argument? That the gospels were written by unknown sources who almost certainly were not eyewitnesses to the events - especially the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles like walking on water?

This is getting circular. You imagine nasty stories about Paul and discount the gospels, then you go back to your assertions. As pp said above, we could find a daily Post blog, 2000 years old, about Jesus, and you’d call it “fake news” and fall back on theories about schizophrenia that you personally have imagined. I’m done here.

You can stomp out dramatically all you want, but the PP is correct.

And FYI a contemporaneous written account any one of Jesus' alleged and incredible miracles would be very persuasive indeed. The problem is, there isn't a single one, even though any one of the many would have been gigantic news.

You have a contemporaneous account in Paul, but you choose to imagine something about schizophrenia or epilepsy instead. And you have near-contemporaneous accounts—within decades—which is pretty amazing for events that are over 2,000 years old. But these aren’t good enough for you. Your choice. But as you know, a billion Christians find the New Testament more convincing than your imaginings about epilepsy.

And it’s more like sighing than stomping. What is it with atheists trying to imagine overreactions from other people, when they (the atheists) are losing a discussion? Next up: “I got under your skin, didn’t I, huh, huh?” Nah, you and your imaginings about Paul are simply boring.

Have a good afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

Who claimed that? I didn't see that on this thread at all.

Still waiting on an answer to this.

Are you just making up some stories of your own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, Jesus’ message seems so credible precisely because it is the ultimate humane approach in our modern, interconnected world. I don’t find religious concepts of favorite peoples or the “other” who is an enemy to be helpful in this age when we insult or even nuke each other with a finger on a button.

I find “love your enemy” and “turn the other cheek” to be great words to live by. Even if Tacitus didn’t bother to write them down or some DCUMer who knows little about Christianity complains that nobody can prove Paul met Jesus or the gospel writers weren’t making it all up.

If Jesus had said something like, “you’re my favorite group of people, now go out and conquer everybody else,” then I’d have doubts. (Obviously I think some historical interpretations of Christianity have been really untrue to the faith.)

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

They weren't written by historians though. They were written as propaganda for a new church. Why on earth would you think they could count as a credible source?

1.8 billion believe in the Koran. Does that make it true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

Try to argue like an adult, even when you’re losing the argument. I guess pp’s on the first page were right—this whole thread is a troll thread. (OP says she attended a church for 12 years but doesn’t know the denomination.)

Losing what argument? That the gospels were written by unknown sources who almost certainly were not eyewitnesses to the events - especially the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles like walking on water?

This is getting circular. You imagine nasty stories about Paul and discount the gospels, then you go back to your assertions. As pp said above, we could find a daily Post blog, 2000 years old, about Jesus, and you’d call it “fake news” and fall back on theories about schizophrenia that you personally have imagined. I’m done here.

You can stomp out dramatically all you want, but the PP is correct.

And FYI a contemporaneous written account any one of Jesus' alleged and incredible miracles would be very persuasive indeed. The problem is, there isn't a single one, even though any one of the many would have been gigantic news.

You have a contemporaneous account in Paul, but you choose to imagine something about schizophrenia or epilepsy instead. And you have near-contemporaneous accounts—within decades—which is pretty amazing for events that are over 2,000 years old. But these aren’t good enough for you. Your choice. But as you know, a billion Christians find the New Testament more convincing than your imaginings about epilepsy.

And it’s more like sighing than stomping. What is it with atheists trying to imagine overreactions from other people, when they (the atheists) are losing a discussion? Next up: “I got under your skin, didn’t I, huh, huh?” Nah, you and your imaginings about Paul are simply boring.

Have a good afternoon.

How is PP losing? PP continues to point out that there still is no proof - which is 100% true. Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So do I. But that's just philosophy. Has nothing to do with whether Jesus was the son of God, or got resurrected or other basic tenants of the faith

For that we have the Gospels and Paul. You claim these aren’t “good enough” because they were written shortly or a few years after his death. Despite the fact that these are pretty incredible sources given the difficulty in finding anything contemporaneous from that period. Or historians’ inability to explain why Jesus’ followers believed so strongly in him that they were still willing to die for his message decades after his death. Methinks that if we found a contemporaneous WAPO account of Jesus’ daily doings, you’d call it “fake news.”

Unfortunately for you, over a billion Christians find these sources not only adequate, but wholly sufficient. You’ll just have to suck up that fact.

The problem isn't that they were written "shortly or a few years" after his death. The problem is they were written by people who were not there at the time, did not know Jesus and could not have known what they were talking about. And as you (I think it was you) have said - you only want to believe in certain parts of these gospels and disregard the rest. So I guess you don't find these books "good enough" either.

Try to argue like an adult, even when you’re losing the argument. I guess pp’s on the first page were right—this whole thread is a troll thread. (OP says she attended a church for 12 years but doesn’t know the denomination.)

Losing what argument? That the gospels were written by unknown sources who almost certainly were not eyewitnesses to the events - especially the virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracles like walking on water?

This is getting circular. You imagine nasty stories about Paul and discount the gospels, then you go back to your assertions. As pp said above, we could find a daily Post blog, 2000 years old, about Jesus, and you’d call it “fake news” and fall back on theories about schizophrenia that you personally have imagined. I’m done here.

You can stomp out dramatically all you want, but the PP is correct.

And FYI a contemporaneous written account any one of Jesus' alleged and incredible miracles would be very persuasive indeed. The problem is, there isn't a single one, even though any one of the many would have been gigantic news.

You have a contemporaneous account in Paul, but you choose to imagine something about schizophrenia or epilepsy instead. And you have near-contemporaneous accounts—within decades—which is pretty amazing for events that are over 2,000 years old. But these aren’t good enough for you. Your choice. But as you know, a billion Christians find the New Testament more convincing than your imaginings about epilepsy.

And it’s more like sighing than stomping. What is it with atheists trying to imagine overreactions from other people, when they (the atheists) are losing a discussion? Next up: “I got under your skin, didn’t I, huh, huh?” Nah, you and your imaginings about Paul are simply boring.

Have a good afternoon.

Sigh... you can't use the bible to prove the bible is true, get that? It's been said a million times. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

Who claimed that? I didn't see that on this thread at all.

Still waiting on an answer to this.

Are you just making up some stories of your own?

Immediate PP’s thought process: “ZOMG, 14:14 laid it all out pretty well, and I look like a whiny person who dumps on epileptics. Time to bump some posts from previous pages. And then I’ll toss off a bunch of facile but basically content-free retorts to pps. That’ll bury their valid points but good! Because that’s what trolls like I do: we bury anything that makes us look bad under a heap of cheap, quickie posts.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. The bottom line is that evidence from 2000+ years ago is really hard to come by. Yet the evidence for Jesus—Paul, the Gospels, Tacitus, Josephus—is pretty darn good for the era. Some of this may be contemporary, or written a few decades afterwards by people who knew Jesus. Other sources (Tacitus, Josephus) are from disinterested parties.

Atheist pp has tried to discredit all of it, but that’s a leap in itself and she’s been forced to come up with various “what ifs ” like schizophrenia.

Almost all (all?) serious scholars disagree with pp’s claim that Jesus as a person never existed. Whether you believe in his message of faith and salvation is a different matter, one of faith.

I haven't seen one claim that Jesus never existed - only that it isn't proven and scholars don't opine on his divinity -- it's beyond their purview.