Did Jesus Exist?

NONE of that compares to the gospels which were written as history and taught as history and believed as history and are STILL believed as history.

Of course they have no problem. They already have multiple deities, avatars and incarnations of God, no problem adding another one. The Roman Empire didn't have any problem adding another deity either, and would have been happy to incorporate the Christian God, but the Christians' refusal to acknowledge their multiple gods got them thrown to the lions. Christianity makes a claim to exclusive truth. It's not popular, the religions of the multiple gods are so much more... "tolerant" ... but it is the truth.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 12:03 AM

pink, well let's see some links or something on the Veda. On the Bible, it does record history as well as teachings. The gospels are actual accounts of Jesus' life. Now, if you want to say you don't believe them, fine, but they are not just a teaching story.

so you believe.
just because you're convinced, doesn't make it truth.

Faith,I brought in the topic of Hinduism from a comment you made I believe in another thread. My point was to ascertain if you believed it possible or not to reject someone's religious beliefs without critizing their character or intelligence. My motive was to get the focus off feeling personally attacked and back to discussing the ideas.There are rabidly anti Christian atheist. But not all the critics of Christianity are that extreme. Neither Earl Doherty or I are claiming Paul or early Christians lied. The mythicist case, which I don't expect you to accept, it that later Christians living in different times misinterpreted Paul's writings. To claim we are attacking Christian intelligence and character gets this argument totally off track.I myself remain agnostic on the question of whether Jesus was historical or mythic (and mythic here doesn't mean "made up lie" but rather a mystical being of a non earthly realm).lfen

Randman, it should have been obvious from my post that I was simply parroting back Faith's naked assertion in reverse - it was a criticism of Faith's argument.Faith hasn't supplied any evidence except faith and fallacy in discussion with me; I'm not sure that either of you have in this entire thread (at least in the chunks I've read).It is a lack of logic, or an abundance of prejudice, that surmises that one religion's history is, indeed, history, while another's is simply demonic teachings.

I don't think Faith had this in mind, though she does lose her temper from time to time. She doesn't accept humanistic piety. She thinks she's right, and naturally those who disagree are wrong. We all feel that way unless our ideas are such that we really don't believe anything.

yes but we aren't all so... verbal about it. most of us tend to describe things from an opinion standing rather than a gospel standing if you forgive my nasty pun.

Actually Rand, I think that's what we are debating here. I think the debate over the existence of Jesus obviously involves debate over the veracity and/or intention of the gospels.cheers

But surely, you are aware that literate Jews, including Jesus, his apostles and most of the early church were the people from whom Christianity emerged from/grew out of. He also fulfilled Jewish prophecies prominent prophets proclamed .

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

I didn't get that, nor did asqara I suspect judging by her comments, but I see your point. You are saying, hey, it's offensive, not so much because it is offensive, but because that's what Faith was doing, taking offense just because of a belief?right track or wrong?

Robin, that is a good point. If one believes that something is true regardless of the evidence it's hard to have a debate. Of course the subject of the existence of a historical jesus is going to bring out those feelings in some people.Personally I try to hold my beliefs until someone gives me good evidence to believe differently. (which can be hard, especially when discussing sports!)

But they are historical accounts, either way. If they are bogus historical accounts, they are still given as a historical account. That's the form they were given in, that a real person Jesus lived, died, etc,...Of course, they are not bogus imo.

Well, I have some very firm nihilistic beliefs, and if you do not accept these beliefs, obviously you are wrong and I am right, in my view. But nobody seems to mind my "intolerance."

Asgara? Asgara hasn't made any comments since that post...? I didn't understand that.It has nothing to do with being offensive or not.It has to do with Faith repeatedly asserting without evidence or explanation that Christian texts are accurate history while those texts of other (demonic) religions like Hinduism are not.