Life after church & not believing in God
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It's all part of civilization. Religions, good and bad, and governments, good and bad, are created to control people. What unfortunately often happens over time is that good ideas like "love one another" go wrong under the control of bad people and become methods of oppression. |
Anonymous
+1,000,000 It’s maths. Bigger numbers win. Math and science are related, no? |
Anonymous
When does your line of calendars come out? |
Anonymous
IOW, pp is out of substantive arguments, so is moving into ad hominem attacks |
Anonymous
Scholars- of whom you have not 1% of their knowledge and study- believe Jesus existed. Playing the victim are we? |
Anonymous
Stupid people ask stupid questions. |
Anonymous
Can pp see through the computer screen and know that the person on the other side is not a scholar? Amazing if so. Doe pp think that proof of existence is proof of being the son of god? Then everyone who ever had a birth certificate is the son of god. All lot of sincere, religious folks don't care about shoing Jesus's historicity. He lives in their hearts. That's all that matters. |
Anonymous
|
It's interesting that Christians who call themselves "people of faith" can go to such extremes to try to prove that Jesus was a real person.
Whenever they have doubts, it's their faith that see them through, not proof or logic. Sure, some will say that they "know" Jesus is their savior, but it's ot the same kind of knowing that their car is full of gas or their rent is paid. It's a spiritual knowing. |
Anonymous
|
Why deny He was a man? If you are not a Christian why worry if He was a man that walked the earth it not?
He did. Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1] Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus. Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and developing new and different research criteria.[9][10] Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14] Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations.[15][16] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the gospels to him, while others portray his "Kingdom of God" as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[17] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus |
Anonymous
To "walked the earth" poster: -- It's not a matter of whether a first century preacher named "Jesus" walked the earth or not. It's that evidence of being human is not evidence of being a god. Also, long paragraphs reposted from the internet don't strengthen the case. |
Anonymous
|
Yeah this whole “SCHOLARS who are much smarter than you that you can’t even understand how much smarter believe Jesus was a person who was alive AND THEREFORE ALL MY MAGICAL THINKING IS JUSTIFIED” doesn’t work for me, personally.
But, you know, we are not going to solve this. You will continue to believe and I will continue to not believe and that’s okay. We don’t have to beat one another up about it. The best we can each hope for is that we use our beliefs for good, to try to improve the lives of others, and never to justify our actions that actually hurt people. Imho. |
Anonymous
Oh look - the Wiki poster is back. I don't deny that a man named Jesus lived. And I also don't think it's likely anyone now can prove that he did live. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. We will likely never know for sure. You have faith that the historical Jesus lived, just like you have faith that he was also a mystical figure. Just faith, no proof. No matter how many wiki pages you copy and paste. |
Anonymous
| My understanding is that Matthew and John, who wrote the 1st and 4th gospels did actually know Jesus, and were eyewitnesses - but if anyone has contrary information I'd be interested in hearing it. |
Anonymous
That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source. 
|
Anonymous
Not sure what you mean here -- if the question is whether Jesus was an actual historical person, I'd think the gospels of Matthew and John, if they actually were there at the time, tends to shed light on that question unless you believe they were fabricate d out of while cloth. From what I've read most biblical scholars deem them authentic. |