Life after church & not believing in God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Dod you know where your "understanding" comes from? I'm guessing from Sunday school or church sermons. As I take any info in the Bible as a story, the concept of "contrary evidence" doesn't apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Dod you know where your "understanding" comes from? I'm guessing from Sunday school or church sermons. As I take any info in the Bible as a story, the concept of "contrary evidence" doesn't apply.

well, I asked what is the contrary evidence? I'm interested in hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

Not really. Multiple historical scholars who are atheists have said that Jesus existed. It's just a historical fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

Not really. Multiple historical scholars who are atheists have said that Jesus existed. It's just a historical fact.

Uh, no it's not a "fact", just a theory. There is no evidence that he did (or didn't) exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

Not really. Multiple historical scholars who are atheists have said that Jesus existed. It's just a historical fact.

Uh, no it's not a "fact", just a theory. There is no evidence that he did (or didn't) exist.

Actually there is a TON of evidence that Jesus existed.

Why am I even wasting time arguing with someone who can’t be bothered to google this and seems completely ignorant is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

Not really. Multiple historical scholars who are atheists have said that Jesus existed. It's just a historical fact.

Uh, no it's not a "fact", just a theory. There is no evidence that he did (or didn't) exist.

Actually there is a TON of evidence that Jesus existed.

Why am I even wasting time arguing with someone who can’t be bothered to google this and seems completely ignorant is beyond me.

What evidence?

No primary, contemporary accounts.
No archaeological evidence.

It's certainly possible that a man named Jesus existed, but there isn't a way to prove it with the information we have today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

Not really. Multiple historical scholars who are atheists have said that Jesus existed. It's just a historical fact.

Uh, no it's not a "fact", just a theory. There is no evidence that he did (or didn't) exist.

Actually there is a TON of evidence that Jesus existed.

Why am I even wasting time arguing with someone who can’t be bothered to google this and seems completely ignorant is beyond me.

What evidence?

No primary, contemporary accounts.
No archaeological evidence.

It's certainly possible that a man named Jesus existed, but there isn't a way to prove it with the information we have today.

NP. You just conveniently waved away Matthew and John because, I guess, they didn’t get a Roman notary public to somehow certify their accounts. We get it, you refuse to accept any evidence, even when it’s strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

Not really. Multiple historical scholars who are atheists have said that Jesus existed. It's just a historical fact.

Uh, no it's not a "fact", just a theory. There is no evidence that he did (or didn't) exist.

Actually there is a TON of evidence that Jesus existed.

Why am I even wasting time arguing with someone who can’t be bothered to google this and seems completely ignorant is beyond me.

What evidence?

No primary, contemporary accounts.
No archaeological evidence.

It's certainly possible that a man named Jesus existed, but there isn't a way to prove it with the information we have today.

Some respected scholars say it's likely and that they think so, but none claim it's a sure thing for the simple reason that there is not the type of evidence, highlighted above, that scholars use for proof.

As for Mathew and John -- they are stories that can't be used as "evidence" to prove a fact. What is factual about those stories is that they both say some similar things about Jesus. It doesn't make any of those things factual.

Imagine that 1000 years from now, someone finds 2 Harry Potter books from the long since forgotten J. K. Rowling series and determines that Dumbledore is a real place because it's mentioned in two similar stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

Not really. Multiple historical scholars who are atheists have said that Jesus existed. It's just a historical fact.

Uh, no it's not a "fact", just a theory. There is no evidence that he did (or didn't) exist.

Actually there is a TON of evidence that Jesus existed.

Why am I even wasting time arguing with someone who can’t be bothered to google this and seems completely ignorant is beyond me.

What evidence?

No primary, contemporary accounts.
No archaeological evidence.

It's certainly possible that a man named Jesus existed, but there isn't a way to prove it with the information we have today.

NP. You just conveniently waved away Matthew and John because, I guess, they didn’t get a Roman notary public to somehow certify their accounts. We get it, you refuse to accept any evidence, even when it’s strong.

After waving away Tacitus and Josephus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

Not really. Multiple historical scholars who are atheists have said that Jesus existed. It's just a historical fact.

Uh, no it's not a "fact", just a theory. There is no evidence that he did (or didn't) exist.

Actually there is a TON of evidence that Jesus existed.

Why am I even wasting time arguing with someone who can’t be bothered to google this and seems completely ignorant is beyond me.

What evidence?

No primary, contemporary accounts.
No archaeological evidence.

It's certainly possible that a man named Jesus existed, but there isn't a way to prove it with the information we have today.

NP. You just conveniently waved away Matthew and John because, I guess, they didn’t get a Roman notary public to somehow certify their accounts. We get it, you refuse to accept any evidence, even when it’s strong.

After waving away Tacitus and Josephus.

They weren't even alive when "Jesus" was killed. It was all second-hand info, at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's cute that you think the bible is a reliable historical source.

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.

"whole cloth"

I'd be surprised if "most biblical scholars" didn't find them "authentic".

But why should anyone care what "most biblical scholars" think?

For the same reason you would care what anyone who has devoted their life to study of a given subject would think?

Or is expertise something we openly don't care about in America anymore?

Who are these scholars? Bible beaters from random Christian universities. Seems like that might make them a tad biased. Pass.

The fact is there are no independent, reliable sources and no archaeological evidence. So maybe he was a real person, maybe not. We have no way to know for sure.

Not really. Multiple historical scholars who are atheists have said that Jesus existed. It's just a historical fact.

Uh, no it's not a "fact", just a theory. There is no evidence that he did (or didn't) exist.

Actually there is a TON of evidence that Jesus existed.

Why am I even wasting time arguing with someone who can’t be bothered to google this and seems completely ignorant is beyond me.

What evidence?

No primary, contemporary accounts.
No archaeological evidence.

It's certainly possible that a man named Jesus existed, but there isn't a way to prove it with the information we have today.

Some respected scholars say it's likely and that they think so, but none claim it's a sure thing for the simple reason that there is not the type of evidence, highlighted above, that scholars use for proof.

As for Mathew and John -- they are stories that can't be used as "evidence" to prove a fact. What is factual about those stories is that they both say some similar things about Jesus. It doesn't make any of those things factual.

Imagine that 1000 years from now, someone finds 2 Harry Potter books from the long since forgotten J. K. Rowling series and determines that Dumbledore is a real place because it's mentioned in two similar stories.

EXACTLY