That absolutely is not the question. I’ll grant you that he (or multiple variations on him) did exist and said some good things. That gets you not one inch closer to proving he was god’s son / divine.
2 Likes
I’d counter this is a far more tolerant and happy place than TIA was.
3 Likes
Wasn’t there more gospels found in the 1940’s Inn a cave by a shepherd? And one of them was the lost gospel of Jesus or something , where basically he said you did not need to have churches etc as god is within us all think the place was nag hamidi or something
This whole debate about whether Jesus existed or not is clearly important to some, but it seems to me to miss the point. There may well have been a kind of guru type figure at that time called Jesus, there certainly were plenty of other religious leaders around then, and there have been ever since. The point is whether he was the son of God as he claimed, and as his followers have always believed. Surely this is the important question, and one that is very difficult to prove.
1 Like
Dead sea scrolls?
Currently reading about the council of Trent……
Think he’s referring to this: Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia
1 Like
That’s the one , last I heard of them was like 15 years ago, wasn’t a bad effort from memory 
3 Likes
Not difficult to prove at all. The guy comes down tomorrow, gives us the cure for childhood cancers and turns the deserts of the world into lush oasii. Simple if you’re and omnipotent being.
Or he doesn’t because he isn’t. But if he is and he could, WTF doesn’t he?
Ah. he works in mysterious ways….
1 Like
I think you’ve engaged in this discussion in bad faith (no pun intended). You accuse me of bringing out a zero sum game, but my experience of talking to you here is that you’re simply ignoring posts that you can’t answer, only then to repeat your point later as if the replies never happened, hoping you won’t get challenged this time. You’ve done the same with Lowton on the historical evidence for Jesus stuff. Just repeating assertions he’s already replied to. That looks a lot like putting winning the argument first and the having a conversation bit second.
On the getting along, I’d like to think so but with religion we have to accept that if we want to have this conversation, we’re inevitably going to piss each each other off. As Sam Harris’s notes in his excellent Letter to a Christian Nation I think you’re wasting your life on a childish fairytale, and you think I’m denying the glory of our Lord, and (depending on your interpretation of the bible) think I’m going to hell. There is no way to tackle that without at least one of us getting upset at the other.
I’m fine with that, but one thing we could try to do is at least try and have the conversation properly, and that means when someone has made a point try and build on it and answer it rather than just ignore it, and if you can’t build on sit, concede it. It took you ages to even semi-concede that Hitler wasn’t an atheist or that Stalin didn’t try and stamp out religion. And even then you just refused to engage with the broader point about irreligious states (that they aren’t actually irreligious when you really think about it) that at least three people made to you.
It’s a shame because instead of falling out about interesting stuff, we end up falling out about nonsense.
So here is a fresh one to think about.
You say there is clear historical, non-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. I don’t think there is, but I can’t be bothered going over all the stuff Lowton has posted, only far less knowledgeably than him.
So, as a short cut, let’s say there is. Let’s say Josephus isn’t a forgery, and let’s pretend the Pliny and Tacitus wrote about him at length. Let’s say there are loads of Roman records referring to Jesus.
So there really was a man called Jesus knocking about Judaea around 30AD gathering followers and generally being a bit of a pain in the arse to the Romans, and ended up getting executed. I can go with that.
The thing is that you still can’t prove anything about his divinity. You can’t prove he was the son of God. You can’t prove he did a single miracle. You can’t prove that he rose from the dead after three days and you can’t prove he ascended into heaven.
The entire basis of your religion is that this man was the son of god and had magical powers and so on. That’s why you think he was special that’s why you worship him.
I don’t think that some people who lived centuries ago writing stories about someone who lived centuries before them, while clearly nicking bits of much older religions in the process, is any way to organise your life in the 21st Century
Origi will score a hatrick before either of us have our questions answered. As Pratchett says, nobody likes inconvenient questions.
I think you’re both asking for proof of something that cannot be given, even if it did happen. I personally am not a believer but how do you expect anyone to prove that Jesus was actually the son of God? It’s precisely why this particular aspect of his being - the divine - isn’t a question of scientific deduction but of faith.
I think it’s reasonable to accept that a man named Jesus existed who gained a sizeable following 2,000 years ago. The rest remains debatable and, to many degrees, unverifiable.
2 Likes
Mascot said he didn’t believe Jesus even existed.
That’s precisely why the whole recent part came about, on documentary evidence for Jesus.
With regard to proof for Gods existence, if it were possible to do that, beyond a shadow of doubt, then everyone would believe. Since that is clearly not the case, the matter obviously goes beyond usual issues of proof.
If the demand is for proof, we don’t understand religion on even a basic level, as faith plays a role too.
The word faith is a little vulnerable to use, because people assume I mean blind faith, or stupid, uneducated faith. I am talking about reasonable faith. As a person who has faith in God I see a beautiful world, an incredible universe, intricate detail, pattern, order, mathematics. I see it all as evidence that points me to God. Others may interpret the evidence differently, I get that.
With regard to another part of my faith, the notion of consciousness intrigues me. I simply don’t buy, at all, that chemistry one day became consciousness. If anyone can explain to me how that happened, I will listen to you! I have read papers on this stuff, because I am intellectually curious, but the best are grasping at straws as far as I can tell.
Still, since people are asking for proof for God, is it too much to ask for proof of how chemistry became consciousness? Is that being replicated, scientifically, in a lab somewhere?
My belief is that something external to ourselves put consciousness there. I actually think God did it to lead us to him.
1 Like
I understand Mascot thinks I am unfair in not coming around to his viewpoint that Stalin did not seek to eradicate religion from the USSR. I think you said you made this point six times, and you are frustrated that I seem to be ignoring it, or acting in bad faith by not responding.
So, apologies for not addressing your concern.
My main point was that Stalin was an atheist, as that was being denied at the time I made that statement. Hopefully that is now established.
Then with regard to whether or not he sought to eradicate religion, yes, he did, and the evidence bears it out. I stand by my viewpoint in that. See the link and look at the evidence.
As for Lowtons point, he plagiarized Van Voorst, which wasn’t cool, but after that I offered significant extra-Biblical evidence that Jesus did exist, and it rebuts most of Lowton’s points and goes much further.
I feel it is unfair to say I am not engaging in good faith.
If Jesus was the son of God, why did he not use his status to perform miracles that were of long term benefit to humanity as a whole instead of performing party tricks like turning water into wine or conjuring up loaves and fishes?
If there really is an all powerful supernatural being, why would it allow all the pain and misery in the world?
What kind of sadistic being could watch all the pain and suffering of not only humans, but animals over millennia and do nothing?
Why are whole sections of humanity, and aeons of natural history absent from the bible?
Why is the bible full of contradictions and instructions that are inherently inhumane?
1 Like
You wouldn’t understand.
Neither psychiatrist or psychologist…
Bu I do really care about stigmatising people with mental ill health. And I do really care when evil is confused with illness as a convenient method of understanding. Hence my annoyance.
And you are of course correct, its not the thrust of this debate. I hope your daughter is recovering and that you can progress to a place where she is comfortable in the world. It is not easy, that is a certainty.
The argument or the discussion on the existence of Jesus is for me a moot point.
The real argument is whether God sent his Son to redeem mankind by sacrificing him.
Is this a literal story or is it fantasy?
Does God exist?
Is Heaven real?
1 Like
Which Jesus are we talking about? The man in the bible or a fella called Jesus wondering about 2000 years ago, picking up followers and talking about the end of the world.
I can happily accept the second might have existed. The first? Not a chance.
1 Like
maybe we’re not her main concern?
1 Like
I love Monday mornings 
