quoting

I'd like to know why you think Jesus didnt exist? No historical evidence (which the writings outside the NT are considered forgeries for some reason) and if you do believe he existed why do you not believe he is the son of God?

Gooch's dad

I do believe that a man existed named Jesus, about whom some myths arose.

I don't believe he is the "son of God" because I don't believe in any gods. I see no evidence that the man Jesus was anything more than an itinerant Jewish preacher, affiliated with John the Baptist's new cult.

quoting

^^That could be.

Gooch's dad

Thank you for being so reasonable. Time for me to go play elsewhere. Have a great evening!

Chuck Rightmire

If a man named Joshua really existed there is little possibility that he is the person called Jesus today. I suspect that the name, some of the sayings, and some of the events of his life may be accurate up to a point. But they have been so heavily overladen since his time (particularly by the person writing as Paul) and by the priests and pastors since (some "rules" of the Catholic church, such as infallibility of the Pope, are fairly recent additions) that there is little of the original left. Too many since that time have been consigned to heaven, purgatory, or hell (none really original to xtianity) that it is hard to tell what the original was. So again, what difference does it make. To those who accept him, he will always be real. To those who don't, he is not real.

Knupfer

So what evidence do you have the Jesus is not the Son of God? Any? If not, then the beliefs of atheists come purely from their imaginations which makes them by definition, imaginary beliefs. End of story. :wave:

Gooch's dad

Knupfer, meet "burden of proof". Burden of proof, meet Knupfer. Please get acquainted, 'k?

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

I think Jesus did exist, and pretty much what was written about him is what each person that either wrote about him or had someone else write down, is what they thought really happened.

Much of what Jesus said and did was misunderstood by the original disciples while he was alive and more so after his "death" and resurrection, pretty much as it is to this day.

I believe that Jesus came back as he promised [what was written was just misunderstood], the first person he met was Mahatma Gandhi who said, something to the effect, that he liked Jesus, but if he had a choice he wouldn't choose to breath the same air as Christians.

Finding this to be true, Jesus repented relented and willed himself out of existence.

Of course Jesus was the son of God, but then ask just about any Jewish guy and they'll tell you every man is the son of God.

Riverwind

'Course I think he was just messin' with ya, but in spite of that, the "burden of proof" is always on the person making positive assertions...

These things are stated as "beliefs" or things you have "faith" in. If you don't simply "believe" them, then what is your proof? For others to see your beliefs as anything but "faith", you must back them up with "proof".

Gooch's dad

Proof is for moonshine and mathematics. My beliefs are based on evidence, and it doesn't require a lot of evidence to simply believe that a man existed. I have listed the evidence for this belief in the thread "HJ, put your cards on the table!". I'm too lazy to link to that thread, and it's on to 14 pages by now anyway.

Now, iff someone claims that this man Jesus is the "son of God", and I believe that he isn't, then I'm not the one making the positive assertion. I'm simply disbelieving in the positive claim "Jesus is the son of God".