dog-on

...because Paul tells us so...


Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

Knupfer

Sorry but the burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused. Jesus has made his case. And until you have evidence that he hasn't, then his words stand as true. But atheists always try to avoid the fact that they have absolutely no evidence for their beliefs so they are imaginary beliefs. And that, my friend, is a fact. :wave:

dog-on

In this instance, wouldn't you first have to prove "Jesus"? Having done that, prove he was who you say he was. Then of course, most importantly, prove the existance of God himself. Do those things, and I'll accept the burden of proof for arguing against the case he made. Deal? :wave:

Jack the Bodiless

Knupfer: We already know that much of the Bible is false (e.g. Genesis creation, Flood, Tower of Babel, failed prophecies, contradictions etc etc etc...). Even if we consider only the New Testament, there are still problems (no Second Coming within the lifetime of his followers, and so on). Plus the disputed authorship and multiple revisions of the NT. Therefore any argument based on "what the Bible says" needs to be treated with extreme caution.

Doug Shaver

Because I found Earl Doherty's argument persuasive and have never seen a cogent counterargument.

David B

I have yet to read an account of god in which gods genitals are described.

I believe someone is once alleged to have seen his butt, though. That seems to ring some sort of bell, anyway. Moses?

Basically, spirits, if they exist, can't fuck.

David B (has, in fact, a lot more in my 'Jesus not son of god who doesn't exist' world view)

Jobar

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Get to readin'. There's rather a lot of it, but it's worth the trouble.

SaguaroJen

OK, I'm out of my league here (and most places) but doesn't "christ" mean "the anointed one?" So aren't you contradicting yourself if you don't belieeeeeve but still tack on "Christ?"

As long as I'm already a bit off-topic, I recall being told that "son of Joseph" is the basic equivalent of Jesus' last name. Anyone? Anyone?

BTW, I pretty much agree with your view, Condrazz, but I also think that many of the exaggerated stories were based on lots of other people.

mountainman

Hundreds of thousands of innocent living and breathing men
who probably had a good father, and a good mother, and
a good wife (or wives) and good many children were indeed
crucified by the political and military enactment of the power
of the Roman Empire.

But I doubt very much whether to any of these victims may
be attributed the character as portrayed in the new testament
writings, and all associated "christian literature".

The reason why I think Jesus did not exist is because
I am yet to be convinced that "christianity" is not indeed
a new and strange Roman religion that was physically
invented in the fourth century, and implemented at Nicaea,
against the words of Arius.

The reason why I think that Jesus did not exist is because
I perceive an unusual integrity in the words of the Emperor
Julian who, writing 362 CE, (at the first opportunity to
denounce the regime of Constantine) wrote "that he was
convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans (ie: NT)
was a fiction of men composed by wickedness".

The reason why I think Jesus did not exist is because
he was invented by the supreme imperial mafia thug,
dictator, military supremacist and malevolent despot,
Constantine, so that he could rob, pillage, plunder
and more effectively tax the empire's traditional religions.

We are not dealing with an historical Jesus.
We are not dealing with an mythical Jesus.
Historically, we are dealing with an implemented fiction.
The boundary event is the Council of Nicaea, and
the rise of Constantine.

You find me a citation from the field of archeology, or
scientific analysis, carbon dating publications, etc, etc
in which there exists unambiguous support for the position
that "christians existed on this planet before Constantine"
and I will be very grateful. I have been seeking such
for some years.

REWARD OFFERED

For information leading to the determination
that there were really "christians" before the
rise of the despot Constantine".

Did Constantine Invent Christianity

Chili

Philosophically "existence requires being" that pre-exist the corporeal body that itself is formed after this image of being. It is in this image that we are God for the simple reason that this image is our essence of existence and so our body is just the manifestation of this essence. IOW, we [also] are the suchness of the thatness that we look for in others, wherefore it is said that we cannot know others beyond the extent that we know our own self. Hence., "love the lord your God with your heart, mind and body and love your neigbor as yourself." How do you love yourself? With your heart mind and body.

So now, did Jesus exist? No he did not exist, but his appearance did exist wherein was torn between his fathers identity as Jew and his mothers identity as the God-bearer (theotokos) but nevertheless was not God or Christ. The descend of the dove is what enabled Jesus to proceed during the 'pupa stage' of development so that the fully mature stage as man can be made known. This identity was called John who was Jesus's bosum buddy and favorite disciple.

To justify the above let me add that Joseph was human and Mary was not (or she would have been a sinner). Joseph was Jewish and Mary was not (or she would have been a sinner).


The short answer here is that eternal life belongs to the mythology and they would have never crucified Jesus if he 'existed' according to my definition of existence as given in Gen.1,2 and 3.