Did Jesus Exist?

Well, revisionism does attack the character of men like Paul, imo, and the early apostles, or some forms do, in essentially claiming these men were fabricating a myth and lie to claim Jesus rose from the dead.

I had added comments that were there on one thread, and now it appears they are gone.I had commented that although saying revisionism was an attack on all Christians may be a stretch, there is a sense that the underlying logic is to say that Christians that believe based on their personal experiences with the Lord are wrong to do so, and as I mentioned earlier, that the men who wrote the New Testament were creating deliberate fabrications.

jar, isn't that the same or at least similar theological view of the Saduccees?This message has been edited by randman, 01-07-2006 11:13 PM

Ned, if someone insists that the writers of the New Testament inserted fabrications in order to further a deception, as some revisionists do, they are assigning a false motive to the writers and as such, attacking the person.Whereas perhaps ad hominen is not the best way to reject revisionist thinking, I think the rejecting of their claim based on assigning false motives has merit.I avoid the term ad hominen even though it is frequently used to disparage creationists and Christians in general by claiming they are too biased to consider the evidence rationally. For example, often the claim is put forth that the only reason someone like me rejects ToE is due to the Bible even when I clearly state otherwise and argue otherwise.Imo then, it is a little foolish for evos here to bring up the use of ad hominen attacks since so much of their belief system seems to rest on the idea that the only reason people reject ToE us due to religion.

Disbelief in spiritual things or thinking that belief in them is not necessary, but that the moral of the message is all that is required and essential is Saduccean, imo.

Pink, part of the problem is that this works both ways. There are things frequently stated by evos here that are extremely offensive but that evos think are just normal. Keep that in mind.Not commenting on Hindus or the Vedas, mind you.

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.

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?

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.

Oh, I thought you were saying that she were telling Faith she was being offensive in order to show her that she was wrong in taking offense at you guys rejecting Christian testimony.

A better question is does Jesus exist?I think one reason believers put more stock in the gospels than skeptics is that believers have subsequent experiences after they believe, and some before they beleive.The skeptic says this evidence is subjective and rejects it, but is that reasonable? The believer thinks it is unreasonable, and for good reason. He or she communes with Jesus and experiences a real experience with Christ, sometimes more dramatic with some believers than others, but real nonetheless, and so the believer thinks the proof is in the pudding. He or she puts Christ to the test and passes it.The problem is this can only be done, for the most part, within and by the individual. You may have some objective evidence such as miracles in Christian meetings, and the New Testament, but without the same subjective evidence, the argument dead ends.