Did Jesus really exist?

Originally posted by sonship
[b]I know that you believe that.

I too have been subdued by the words and Person of Jesus.
I believe like Grampy, in the New Testament.


However you have absolutely no rational justification for doing so.
Because there is absolutely no evidence that your god exists, or that there is an afterlife of any kind,

There is rational justi ...[text shortened]... t is not HARDER for me NOT to believe. It requires far more effort to NOT believe in Christ now.[/b]

Saying that something is rational does not make it so.

There are rules to what is or is not rational and those rules require evidence to believe a claim.
And by the rational rules of evidence, you do not have any.

You can claim otherwise until you are blue in the face, but that will not change the fact that
you still have no evidence.


The fact that you think that you didn't have the ability to change your own life and thus believe
that your life must have been changed by some external power is not in any way valid evidence
to justify believing in some supernatural external power. This is a common and often refuted
argument.

The truth is that you DO have the power to change yourself, and if you have taken hold of your
life and made it better then you deserve the credit for doing so. [with a nod to any actual people
who supported you as well]

People can turn their life around without belief in god [or beliefs in different gods] and people can
utterly fail to do so while believing in god/s.

Sometimes, I wonder if some of you atheists are afraid to be loved by God.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. NO!

We do not BELIEVE that your god, or any other god, exists.

We therefore have no fear of your god of any kind. [with the caveat that some people transitioning out of
being a Christian, or other religion, to atheism can sometimes take a while to loose their fears of hell ect
because they have been so deeply ingrained in them by years of abuse by their religion. Which is one of
the reasons atheist support groups exist, to help people through such transitions, and undo the harm done
to them by their old/your current religion]

What you are thinking is utterly nonsensical.

Originally posted by googlefudge
As I have said many times before [you really need to start paying attention]...

None.

And you are, again, dodging the point.

I know that you believe a god exists.

What I do not know is if you can comprehend that your 3 examples of 'faith' are
not all examples of the same thing.

And please note that by saying they are not all examples of the ...[text shortened]... low-up if you answer no...
What about my arguments do you either not understand, or not agree with?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"With all spirituality questions
I accept the authority of sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient eternal God...
whose authority do you accept?"

Originally posted by googlefudge
"As I have said many times before [you really need to start paying attention]...

None."
______________________________

Without acceptance of authority there is no teachability; without teachability there is no possibility of learning; without learning, ignorance prevails. How did you ever pass from one grade to the next in the earliest grades of school as a child, through high school as a teenager or to graduate from a university? Or does your rejection of authority apply only to the spiritual realm? If so how in the world would anyone here be able to engage in friendly conversation in the context of honest disagreement with you?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"With all spirituality questions
I accept the authority of sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient eternal God...
whose authority do you accept?"

Originally posted by googlefudge
"As I have said many times before [you really need to start paying attention]...

[b]None."
___________________ ...[text shortened]... here be able to engage in friendly conversation in the context of honest disagreement with you?[/b]

Without acceptance of authority there is no teachability...

Wrong. What there isn't is 'indoctrinablity'.

You can learn without 'accepting authority'. In fact you learn much better by doing so.

Learning to question and to verify instead of accepting, yes on faith, leads to a better
and deeper understanding and improved mental faculties. As well as an ability to teach
yourself.

YOU are no authority, and you should stop acting like it.

Learn to converse with peers, instead of pretending you are a preacher dispensing 'knowledge'
to your flock.

EDIT: and you are dodging my question again. I am not going to give up on this.

And you are, again, dodging the point.

I know that you believe a god exists.

What I do not know is if you can comprehend that your 3 examples of 'faith' are
not all examples of the same thing.

And please note that by saying they are not all examples of the same thing, is
not specifying if any of them are wrong, it's just specifying that they are different.

I have taken some trouble to explain why the three examples are not the same, and
as yet you have not dealt with this either by accepting my arguments or rebutting them.

All you are doing is stating what I already know about your beliefs in convoluted and
unnecessary ways to avoid dealing with my points.

So I have a simple yes/no question, to which I expect a clear yes/no answer.

Do you understand that the third example of 'faith' you gave is not an example of the same
phenomena as the first two examples of 'faith' that you provided?

With the follow-up if you answer no...
What about my arguments do you either not understand, or not agree with?

Originally posted by googlefudge

You can learn without 'accepting authority'. In fact you learn much better by doing so.

Perhaps the word "authority" is a dirty word with you. Maybe just in the realm of spiritual matters "authority" has a bad connotation with you.

But to me the "authority" of Christ is that of one who personally laid down His life for me. This is the "authority" that I am constrained to love.

There was a story about a mother who ran into a burning house in order to rescue here baby daughter who was inside. She saved the child's life. But in the process the mother was horribly burned and disfigured in the face.

Latter in elementary school she overheard her daughter respond to a friend asking "Is that your mother?" The little girl was ashamed because of her mother's disfigured face from the scares of burning. So in embarrassment she said "No." This broke the heart of the mother to hear her daughter not want to be associated with her. She had suffered those scares in order to save the child's life.

This illustration speaks something of how I feel towards the "authority" of Jesus the Son of God. What He went through innocently, on my behalf, constrains me to love Him. He did not have to do it. He could have let me die in my sins. I cannot disown Him.

Yes, He has an authority over me. But this authority led Him to suffer horribly, nailed to His cross, when I was the one who deserved to be tortured there. He died in my place. It is very personal even though He is God in a man to die for the whole world. It is still very personal.

So the "authority" of Christ in my life is an entirely self sacrificing and loving authority. I am constrained by His love to come to Him for the this One's to be under His authority. In this sense the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and give His life a ransom for us.

Originally posted by sonship

You can learn without 'accepting authority'. In fact you learn much better by doing so.

Perhaps the word "authority" is a dirty word with you. Maybe just in the realm of spiritual matters "authority" has a bad connotation with you.

But to me the "authority" of Christ is that of one who [b]personally laid down His life f ...[text shortened]... this sense the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and give His life a ransom for us.[/b]

No, 'authority' is a universally bad reason for believing anything.
It just so happens that religions are particularly big on authority, because they have no evidence.


You keep [and GB similarly] giving highly emotionally charged reasons for why you believe in
and accept Jesus/god and why you think they are so great.

But what you don't ever do is give ANY evidence that Jesus or god actually exist, or that these
stories are actually true.

Bearing in mind that I don't believe that Jesus even existed as a historical figure, and that the
stories about him [and god] are entirely made up and fictional.

What is it that you are intending to achieve by these overly emotionally manipulative stories
you keep telling me?

You know that I don't accept anecdotes as evidence for the supernatural.
You know I don't believe that these people existed, or that the events in the bible actually happened.
You know that I regard 'sin' as an evil and morally bankrupt concept of no relevance as I don't believe
that god/s exist.
And you know that I know that you believe in your religion with all of your being and are deeply emotionally
invested in it.

So why do you spend all of your time telling me these things I already know, and am not going to accept
without any evidence or reason to do so, and not providing any evidence or reason to accept them?


Particularly given that I have on a number of occasions [along with most other atheists here] pointed out
how stupid it is that your god supposedly had his son [or a part of himself] tortured and killed to atone
for supposed 'crimes' we committed against god, so that god could forgive us for committing these 'crimes'.
Because this is how stupid this argument sounds...

You Don't Have To Go Down in My Basement, Dan Barker
YouTube&hd=1

Part of this longer talk.
YouTube&hd=1

Originally posted by googlefudge

Without acceptance of authority there is no teachability...

Wrong. What there isn't is 'indoctrinablity'.

You can learn without 'accepting authority'. In fact you learn much better by doing so.

Learning to question and to verify instead of accepting, yes on faith, leads to a better
and deeper understanding and improved mental facul ...[text shortened]... u answer no...
What about my arguments do you either not understand, or not agree with?[/b][/quote]

Originally posted by googlefudge
"So I have a simple yes/no question, to which I expect a clear yes/no answer.

Do you understand that the third example of 'faith' you gave is not an example of the same
phenomena as the first two examples of 'faith' that you provided?"
_________________________

No, Sir, not on your life. All three still stand as graphic empirical examples of "faith" based on actual experiences in different chapters of my own life. In the first anecdotal example [given on page 6] my trust was placed in my father's word [a simple early exercise of "faith"]; in the second I trusted my parents and took them at their word [another simple exercise of "faith" as a teen.]; and in the third "Three physicians themselves shook my hand stating that I had been the recipient of a gradual miracle [another exercise of "faith" in God's plan and purpose for my life as an adult"] which I had learned from the promises revealed in God's Word.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What I do not know is if you can comprehend that your 3 examples of 'faith' are
not all examples of the same thing.

I am not convinced you have a valid claim. I think all his examples are cases of putting faith in something/someone. I think in all instances the word 'faith' implies a belief that a certain outcome will be obtained even though it is not guaranteed by the evidence.
I am also curious about why he refers to it a 'an exercise in faith'. That phrasing seems to suggest that he feels that his act of faith had some merit or had some effect on the outcome. He also implies by the post that because the first two examples worked out, there is an increased likelihood that the third time will also work out which is poor reasoning on his part.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by googlefudge
"So I have a simple yes/no question, to which I expect a clear yes/no answer.

Do you understand that the third example of 'faith' you gave is not an example of the same
phenomena as the first two examples of 'faith' that you provided?"
_________________________

No, Sir, not on your life. All three still ...[text shortened]... r my life as an adult"[/i]] which I had learned from the promises revealed in God's Word.

Ok. thankyou, that was a clear answer.

Again, I am not disputing that the events you describe happened as you describe.

However the three uses of the word 'faith' are not the same.

In the first two, you are placing 'faith' in the words or actions of regular human beings
who you know intimately. And thus you are placing your trust in them with evidence that
doing so is justified and that they are worthy and deserving of being trusted.

In the third you are placing your 'faith' in the words or actions of a god.
There is no evidence that this god exists, you can thus have no evidence whatsoever that this
god is trustworthy. You are not therefore placing trust in this god based on any evidence at all.
Therefore while you are in both instances placing trust and your belief in something or someone.
Your 'potential' justification for doing so, and the mental 'action' you are taking is different.
And corresponds to different meanings of the word faith.

The first [two] uses of 'faith' correspond to the meaning you posted from the OED.

trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised

The third use of the word 'faith' corresponds to the definition I generally give for faith. [blind faith]

Belief in the truth of a proposition without sufficient evidence to justify such a belief, or despite
evidence that contradicts such a belief

Now you should be able to quite clearly see that my definition of the word faith does not apply to
your first two uses of the word.

You DO have evidence in terms of your experience that these people you are trusting are worthy of that
trust as you are intimately familiar with them. It is thus clearly not true that the 'faith' you place in them
is not blind faith, as I have described it. Where you believe without any evidence or despite of contrary evidence.


You should also be able to see, although I foresee argument here, that while my definition of faith doesn't
apply to the first two examples... It absolutely does apply to the third.
Because here you clearly don't have any evidence with which to base your trust and belief.


So. Without simply repeating the same statements you have already posted several times...

Do you still disagree?

And if so, at what point/points do you disagree with my argument?

Originally posted by googlefudge

No, 'authority' is a universally bad reason for believing anything.

After the crucifixion the dejected and frightened discples decided it was all come to an end like some strange dream, even a bad dream. But Jesus appeared to them, ate fish with them, conversed with them, allowed them to touch His body. And he showed himself to them over a period of 40 days with many infallible proofs.

The authoritative sounding words were backed up by the power of HIs resurrection sealing the truth of those words.

He acted as the Son of God along with speaking and performing many things as only God could do.

It just so happens that religions are particularly big on authority, because they have no evidence.

You have an explanation how 11 men hiding out for fear of also being nailed up on a Roman cross or stoned by the Jewish religionists, in so short of a time turned the world upside down with their proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead?

Please don't tell me about the extremely rare event, if ever, of mass hallucinations.

No googlefudge, we have evidence. And it is outside us and inside us. And we cannot like ostriches bury our heads in the sand and say "There's no evidence. There's no evidence."

Now I know all about Dan Barker.
If there some favorite Dan Barker arguments you want to try on me, maybe I'll tell you how I would respond to old Dan Barker.

You keep [and GB similarly] giving highly emotionally charged reasons for why you believe in

Highly emontionally charged. Hmmm. Well EMOTIONS are a legitimate component of my humanity. I mean I don't HAVE to act like Mr. Spock.

Truth CAN involve strong emotion too.
Besides, right now I am not gushing over with emotion. I am quite calmly and sobely telling you that you can take the New Testament just on the bases of being a HISTORICAL document rather than an inspired revelatory document, and see strong evidence that at least a large number of people BELIEVED that Jesus rose from the dead.

If you were open minded I would recommend historian and Christian apologist Gary Habermas. He is probably one of the least emotional and objective defeaters of Jesus Mythers by proving by good practices of the professional historian that we have evidence that at least an unusual crowd of people believed soon after the execution of Jesus, that He has been seen afterwards ALIVE.

Their conviction of this was TOO close to the even of the execution for legend to be spun or myth to me concocted. This is historical evidence based on the New Testament as a document of history which it is.

Do we Christians take the New Testament as revelatory Scripture? Yes we do. But the non-believer and the objective historian can take is quite unemotionally as a historical document - actually a collection of such.

And Matthew Slick debates quite well with Dan Barker.

Matt Slick verses Dan Barker
Does God Exist?
YouTube

Dan Barker verses Matt Slick
Is There a Reason to be Good Without God?
YouTube

Dan Barker's no slamdunk for the "Been There Done That - X Evangelical Atheist hero." But another disgruntled preacher for whom the clergy / laity system turned out to be not as fun as he thought it would be. So he turns and blames God and the Christian faith making a buck off the gullible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not convinced you have a valid claim. I think all his examples are cases of putting faith in something/someone. I think in all instances the word 'faith' implies a belief that a certain outcome will be obtained even though it is not guaranteed by the evidence.
I am also curious about why he refers to it a 'an exercise in faith'. That phrasing seems ...[text shortened]... increased likelihood that the third time will also work out which is poor reasoning on his part.

Incidentally, for GB, that is how you make a coherent clear response and rebuttal to an argument you disagree with.

I am not convinced you have a valid claim. I think all his examples are cases of putting faith in something/someone. I think in all instances the word 'faith' implies a belief that a certain outcome will be obtained even though it is not guaranteed by the evidence.

Ahh, but there are many different meanings of the word faith, and how they differ is in terms of how/why that faith is given.

Lets ditch the word faith for the moment and look at what it is he is doing in these three instances.

In the first two, he is trusting the word [and future actions] of people he knows and has vast experience of to do what they
say they will do.

In the third, he is trusting the word [and future actions] of a being who we know doesn't exist, and that he certainly doesn't
have any [let alone sufficient] evidence to justify believing in it's existence, let alone evaluating it's trustworthiness.


In the third instance he is doing something qualitatively different than in the first two instances.
In all instances he is placing trust and belief in the words and future actions of other beings.
But the basis, justifiability, and validity of the placing of that trust is completely different in the first two
as compared with the third.

Now, unhelpfully, there are different definitions of the word faith that encompass both mental actions.
This is why I specifically [unless specified otherwise] avoid using the word faith to mean anything other than
my definition of 'blind faith'. And instead use other words such as trust, to describe belief in the future actions
of other people for whom I have evidence of their trustworthiness.
However they are still different mental actions, one justifiable [rationally] and the other not justifiable.

This is the equivocation, the use of the same word, to describe different mental actions as if they were the same.
He is using the first two examples of a reasonable action to try to justify a different action that happens to have
the same descriptor.

That phrasing seems to suggest that he feels that his act of faith had some merit or had some effect on the outcome. He also implies by the post that because the first two examples worked out, there is an increased likelihood that the third time will also work out which is poor reasoning on his part.

I agree, and it's a potentially interesting topic. However as I am trying to keep my discussion with him on
one specific dispute and actually resolve it, I would suggest that if you are interested that you ask him
about this yourself.

Originally posted by sonship

It just so happens that religions are particularly big on authority, because they have no evidence.

You have an explanation how 11 men hiding out for fear of also being nailed up on a Roman cross or stoned by the Jewish religionists, in so short of a time turned the world upside down with their proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead?
Please don't tell me about the extremely rare event, if ever, of mass hallucinations.

Well there are many potential explanations.

The most plausible given the current evidence is that the entire story is completely fabricated.
Jesus never existed, neither did the people the BIBLE [a work of fiction] claims saw him.

And it gained traction the way ALL OTHER RELIGIONS do, and have done.

If you don't have any trouble explaining why other religions have spread so far and wide, then I
have no problem explaining Christianity.

And I posted the Dan Barker clip, because it effectively illustrates [in humorous fashion] how weird
and idiotic the idea that Jesus had to suffer and die to 'save us' from gods own barbarism.
Not because he is either infallible, or some great atheist prophet or leader... Because we don't have any.

That said, I view Matt Slick as human scum, slippery as a snake, and a horrible and repulsive debater.

It's very likely that if I can bring myself to watch those debates, I will come out with a completely opposite
view on who 'won' the debate than you did. Which is one reason I don't put that much stock in these 'debates'.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Particularly given that I have on a number of occasions [along with most other atheists here] pointed out
how stupid it is that your god supposedly had his son [or a part of himself] tortured and killed to atone
for supposed 'crimes' we committed against god, so that god could forgive us for committing these 'crimes'.
Because this is how stupid this argument sounds...

Yes Jesus was Tortured and Jesus was killed.

Jesus being tortured and killed testifies how ABOSLUTE He was for what He believed, rather KNEW was the truth.

He could have avoided being tortured and killed. He even says that He had the option to call 12 legions of angels to devastate miraculously the mob that came after Him.

He did not HAVE to go through crucifixion.
His absoluteness to leave His vindication 1,000,000 % up to one He called "the Father" testifies how absolute He was in that conviction.

And on the cross of His torture He asked of the Father -

'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" was answered by the Father. And YOUR sins were judged by God upon the Son, in order that you could be justified.

He went through the torture and the death so that you would be justified for your real guilt for real sins and real transgressions against the law of God which you have really committed.

Mine are worse. And I know He submitted not only to man's torment. But He requested forgiveness for me. And to answer that petition RIGHTEOUSLY God made Him a substitute for me.

God will not give up His righteousness for anything.
He will forgive man.
But He will do so with a manifestation of His Justice upon man's sins. And Christ bore not just man's torture but more so the wrath of God upon man's sins that you might be saved from that wrath.

I fear for you that it is blasphemy for you to call what the Son went through stupid. You may show off for your atheists friends here.

But only one other Person really cares about your eternal destiny - the Son of God. When it comes down to it, only what you do with Jesus will matter. Dan Barker won't be around to persuade God concerning you.

You use your lips to criticize Jesus Christ. The day will come when you will use those two lips to criticize yourself before God - an absolutely holy and righteous God Who sent His Son that you might be saved.

None of your atheist pals will be there to help you argue with the One who gave you the ability to argue at all. He is your Creator. He is also in the Son - your Savior.

Do you have enough arguments googlefudge? Do you have enough excuses? Do you have enough reasons for God? Better get some more! Do you have enough good arguments when God shows you your life before you with infallible recollection?

Originally posted by googlefudge
In the first two, he is trusting the word [and future actions] of people he knows and has vast experience of to do what they
say they will do.

In the third, he is trusting the word [and future actions] of a being who we know doesn't exist, and that he certainly doesn't
have any [let alone sufficient] evidence to justify believing in it's existence ...[text shortened]... he third instance he is doing something qualitatively different than in the first two instances.

I disagree. I believe that in all three instances he believed his faith was largely justified by his experience. Whether you, in his position would feel similarly is irrelevant. Whether he is being rational in his decision making is irrelevant. I do not think the three instances are as qualitatively different as you claim.
Also, you actually do not know his father, nor know how trustworthy he was - so your statement regarding him are unwarranted. Maybe he put his faith in his father despite his father not warranting such faith. Many parents I know lie to their children all the time.

Now, unhelpfully, there are different definitions of the word faith that encompass both mental actions.
I know there are different meanings of the word, but I am not convinced he is using those different meanings. He may only be using the one meaning.

I would suggest that if you are interested that you ask him about this yourself.
I have given up on getting straight answers out of GB.

Originally posted by sonship
You have an explanation how 11 men hiding out for fear of also being nailed up on a Roman cross or stoned by the Jewish religionists, in so short of a time turned the world upside down with their proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead?

If you had actually watched the video, you might have realized that that actually works against you. The very fact that the Christians went around proclaiming that Jesus escaped execution and never got arrested nor triggered a man hunt is strong evidence that no such criminal was known to the Romans.

Certainly you should consider watching the video before you embarrass yourself further.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok. thankyou, that was a clear answer.

Again, I am not disputing that the events you describe happened as you describe.

However the three uses of the word 'faith' are not the same.

In the first two, you are placing 'faith' in the words or actions of regular human beings
who you know intimately. And thus you are placing your trust in them with ev ...[text shortened]... es...

Do you still disagree?

And if so, at what point/points do you disagree with my argument?

Originally posted by googlefudge
"In the first two, you are placing 'faith' in the words or actions of regular human beings
who you know intimately."
____________________________

Thank you as well for remaining objective and on topic.

Since becoming a believer in Christ and instantly becoming a trichotomous human being [body, soul and human spirit] I've been able to gradually learn the absolute truths revealed in the Word of God, thank to the accurate teaching [from the original languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Classical and Koine Greek in which the scripture was written] by several diligent pastor/teachers. Growing in grace and acquiring an appreciation for the Mind of Christ [His thinking] I've also become the beneficiary of an intimate reverential relationship with God the Father [to Whom I pray] as well as preoccupation with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If anything the earlier examples of my faith, trust, confidence in and intimacy with my dear parents is dwarfed in comparison.