Evidence Jesus never existed:

Originally posted by galveston75
Rudolf Bultmann, a professor of New Testament studies, stated: “The doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation.

It would appear then that you are taking the same stance. Well, that's up to you.
But don't make the error of thinking that by not giving a refutation you have given one.
You do seem to have attempted an argument from authority ie quote a long list of people with big titles (despite at least one of them not being a historian at all) who make assertions about the historicity of Jesus.
If I quote the same number of people with big titles saying the opposite, would you be convinced? Give an honest answer now.

Originally posted by galveston75
So of all the people in the bible that are named, who do you actually believe existed? Do you have to see all their written records of birth and death to believe?

Do you seriously think that is a sensible question to ask? Really?

In this thread, nobody has provided any genuine evidence towards the hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist. But it is notable that nobody has provided any genuine evidence or argument towards the hypothesis that he did. That you and sonship are floundering around so desperately is telling. You both are clearly well aware of the lack of supporting evidence and both feeling very insecure about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you seriously think that is a sensible question to ask? Really?

In this thread, nobody has provided any genuine evidence towards the hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist. But it is notable that nobody has provided any genuine evidence or argument towards the hypothesis that he did. That you and sonship are floundering around so desperately is telling. ...[text shortened]... e clearly well aware of the lack of supporting evidence and both feeling very insecure about it.

I never said there was factual support other then what the bible says. But my question to you was who do you actually believe lived that the bible named that were followers of Jesus and as far as that goes how about all the bible characters before Jesus that are named? Do you have proof of them ever living?

Originally posted by galveston75
I never said there was factual support other them what the bible says.

And I never implied that you did. But it is notable that instead of pointing to the Bible, you tried a number of other tactics including quoting writers that merely confirm the existence of early Christians, and quoting 'authorities' that agree with you (but don't provide any substance).

But my question to you was who do you actually believe lived that the bible named that were followers of Jesus and as far as that goes how about all the bible characters before Jesus that are named? Do you have proof of them ever living?
And my question to you was whether or not you think that was a sensible question. I honestly have never read the Bible end to end and couldn't possibly list all the named characters in it, and I am willing to bet that you couldn't either. That you seem to think I would write a book on the historicity of each one is just plain ridiculous.
I don't have 'proof' of anything. I do think there is strong evidence for some Biblical characters having lived and very little evidence for others, and plenty of good reasons to believe that quite a number are entirely fictional.
As for Jesus I would say the question is undecided and possibly undecidable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I never implied that you did. But it is notable that instead of pointing to the Bible, you tried a number of other tactics including quoting writers that merely confirm the existence of early Christians, and quoting 'authorities' that agree with you (but don't provide any substance).

[b]But my question to you was who do you actually believe lived t ...[text shortened]... ntirely fictional.
As for Jesus I would say the question is undecided and possibly undecidable.

Well yes I think it was a very good question. Simply put why entertain this thought that Jesus could not have existed because of lack of the proof you desire when in fact most in the bible could be questioned on your grounds? If you accept them you have to accept Jesus.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well yes I think it was a very good question. Simply put why entertain this thought that Jesus could not have existed because of lack of the proof you desire when in fact most in the bible could be questioned on your grounds? If you accept them you have to accept Jesus.

I have never suggested that I desire proof. That is your invention.
And if most of the Bible can be questioned on the grounds of lack of good evidence, then maybe it should be questioned. So, no, I do not accept them, nor Jesus. But let us be very clear here: I am not claiming to know that Jesus didn't exist. I am claiming that there are good reasons to think that he might not have existed. Not everything is black and white with proof one way or the other.

It remains the case that your question was not well thought out as you seemed to think that I have studied the historicity of every named person in the Bible which is frankly ridiculous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have never suggested that I desire proof. That is your invention.
And if most of the Bible can be questioned on the grounds of lack of good evidence, then maybe it should be questioned. So, no, I do not accept them, nor Jesus. But let us be very clear here: I am not claiming to know that Jesus didn't exist. I am claiming that there are good reasons to ...[text shortened]... t I have studied the historicity of every named person in the Bible which is frankly ridiculous.

OK...you win!!!!

Originally posted by sonship
It is known that considerable staging, simulation, stage setting apparatuses for simulated moon flight training exist. Models of the surface of the moon, rail like tracks for simulated camera shots.

Now I doubt any kind of videoed dramatizations of Napoleon's battle with the Duke of Wellington exist to be broadcast as history. But there is some frequ ...[text shortened]... ul tests is realistically compared to the sheer gamble of an unsuccessfully tested Lunar Lander.

Why don't you say it straight out, you NEVER thought the moon landings real. I don't know how old you are or whether you saw the broadcasts in 1969. You must have at least seen the rebroadcasts.

I keep telling you there was no computer tech in 69, our cell phones are a million times better than the so-called computers of the day. I know that for a fact, having worked on them and I know you know I was an Apollo tech at Goddard. The tech I saw was no simulation. My classroom exercise of using a small student antenna dish to locate and lock on to a 5 watt signal from an orbiting Mars craft was no simulation, there was nobody in a secret room making up simulations to fool all us techs at Goddard and elsewhere. The tech involved in my equipment, tracking and timing was real, and REAL expensive. Atomic clocks are not and were not cheap and we had two of them plus a tertiary advanced quartz clock in the mix also and there were a dozen of those devices in radio telescope sites around the world along with the analog digital coding to send a signal to Apollo which rebroadcasted that signal when analyized allowed them to pinpoint the distance to Apollo within 50 feet. That was not simulated and there were a thousand other such devices on Apollo and ground stations that would never have been necessary if it was to be faked. I have said it once and I will say it again, the people who started this crap were AMERICAN. Not Russian, not Chinese. Both of those countries had advanced radar that tracked Apollo coming and going and you don't fake a fireball coming in from space making a 10,000 degree ball of fire, protected from Apollo by ablating heat shields. They came in going far faster than if it was some kind of low orbit re-entry trick. They came in at 25,000 miles per hour not 15,000 or so from low orbit.

But of course none of that will make the slightest bit of difference to you or any of the other moon landing deniers. I fully suspect you like the man said, just don't want mankind to be doing things thought to be the realm of a god. I think that is the bottom line and you don't have enough honesty about it to acknowledge that effect.

I think you fear some kind of godly retribution if we continue to show ourselves capable of doing what you only thought possible for gods.

I think that is the bottom line of your hesitation to declare the moon landings real.

What are you going to say when we start going back and even CHINA photographs the Apollo landing sites and the footprints and car tracks therein? Will you also deny the Chinese going to the moon? Or the Russians? Or Elan Musk who claims he will launch tourists around the moon in a couple of years. That fake too?