inkblot, the gospels do not meet historical standards, literary standards, or literary-standards-in-context-of-the-times as biographies.

There were about 47 Jewish historians of the times, and none had more than a passing reference to the names Chrestians, Chrestos, Chrestus, Jesus, etc, and some of these - such as in Josephus's TF in the Antiquity of [the] Jews - are considered fraudulent additions. Some of those names are more related to slaves, and Jesus was a common name.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

McReal

It's all about what you read isn't it? If you wish to concern yourself with a one-sided account to satisfy your convictions, then you aren't going to learn much.

Have you heard of Julius Africanus? Flavius Josephus - a famous Jewish historian? There are plenty others, Pliny the younger, Lucian of Samosata, all with accounts not only about the figure of Jesus Christ, but that he was 'more' than just a man.

Flavius Josephus says it pretty clearly to me:

"About this time appeared Jesus," The detailed quote is in the link you posted.

Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) and Suetonius (A.D. 75-160)the Roman writers talk about Christ, how he stirred up people and was put to death. These were 'pagan' or non-Christian writers, who had no interest in propagating Christianity.

The gospels are historical documents that have received far more critical research than most other texts in history. To discredit them is just not being historically consistent.

I checked out your link. it is interesting that those who are sceptical of the existence of Jesus Christ start around the 18th century, funnily enough around the time of the so-called 'Enlightenment.' If you can't beat religion, just pretend it never happened eh? Don't you think that if there was a serious controversy about whether or not one of the most famous people in history actually ever existed, the argument would have started a little earlier than the 18th century?

The quotes of Earl Doherty are an embarrassment for him - how can he say that the Jesus of Paul's epistles is only a spiritual person, not a human being? There are constant references to Christ's humanity and actions in Paul's writing. He talks about how he died, what he did before he died etc.

It would be history's biggest ever conspiracy, if it was generally accepted that Jesus Christ did not exist, wouldn't it? That the person on whom millions of people have devoted their lives, study, research and even the counting of time and historical references, never existed!

Read widely and have an open mind

inkblot, I mentioned Josephus in my brief post, so for you to command me to read widely is quite something. My post also covers the vague mentions and references to the name of Christ, and its vague variations, by Tacticus, Suetonius, and others of the time.

Paul's writings are gnostic-like, and have been credited with appealing to the gentiles, but having to promise a second coming as the messiah he proposed was not believed to be a messiah because they did not die.

The scepticism is only documented after the 1800s because sceptics were burnt at the stake before that!

Ink blot,

<<For a Christian, there is only one God ... who is not out to punish, but to welcome back and show mercy.>>

Yes, “welcome back”, but if we exercise our reasoning and decide that no gods exist, then it’s Hell. That certainly does sound like a god out to punish.

Of course, there are some Christians out there who now believe that Hell is just eternal nothingness, but this isn’t really much better since they still believe that they’ll receive a great reward that others will miss out on.

<<For a Christian considering the existence of God and getting caught up wondering if they are worshipping the wrong God is a bit of a contradiction in terms.>>

Yes, I’m aware of all that. You seem to have missed the point of Pascal’s Wager. It argues that you may as well believe in god since you’ve got nothing to lose (Well, you actually have a lot to lose - yet another problem with it. But that’s another story). Pascal’s Wager is not relevant to the already sincere believers.

<<I seriously think you are mistaken if you hold that human beings do not have free will.>>

Note the qualifier in what I said: “...if god exists”.

<<Perhaps you mean that for believers in God, free will is not possible?>>

What I said was that if a god exists, there is no free will because everything we’ve done and will do was already predetermined in the mind of this god, and since - according to Christian theology anyway - god’s will is always done, then nothing can change. So everything that has happened and that will happen was already ‘set in stone’ from the beginning.

Here’s another reason free will is a problem for Christians...

If I ask you to do something for me, but then warn you that if you say “no”, I’ll lock you up and torture you for the rest of your life, are you exercising free will if you say “yes”?

Sure, you’re given a choice, but it’s not much of a choice now, is it?

Continued...

...Continued

<<The evidence is clear - that you and I get up out of bed in the morning is free will...>>

Gods, by their very definition, are all-knowing and all-seeing. So a god would know in advance what was already going to happen. This means that we cannot deviate from what this god foresaw since doing so would mean that this god is not actually a god to begin with.

The only way you’ve responded to this is with wild assertions...

<<God is not in time.>>

How do you know this?

<<...if created by God, then God is logically outside the world he created.>>

Why is this logical? Why can’t god be inside the world he created too? Apparently he was with Jesus, so where have you derived your logic here from?

Please don’t use the author/book analogy either. We are talking about an imaginary being creating an objective reality, not a real-life person creating a fictional story.

<<He is outside time. God is eternal (no beginning or end), and eternity can be most simply described as a 'constant instant'. So all times are 'present' to God. He sees everything in an instant.>>

Again, how do you know this? What method do I have for determining that you’re not just making this stuff up?

<<We can act the way we want, because we have free will. If we didn’t then logically we shouldn’t have to take responsibility for our actions.>>

Precisely, and this is exactly why a god would ultimately be responsible for everything bad in this world - including sending people to hell...

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

<<OK, I am willing to agree that Christianity is like a ‘disease’ in this way...>>

No, I still think my analogy was far more accurate.

Continued...

...Continued

My analogy described how Christianity actually does what your analogy is describing while acknowledging that fact that the (emotionally) vulnerable are more at risk of being infected.

<<Is it really pointless to try to speculate about what we do not know?>>

No, but you just went one big step further than “speculating” about what you don’t know by making assertions about what god is when you have no way of knowing.

<<Are unprovable speculations really indistinguishable from that which does not exist?>>

No, but I know from experience that when a theist says something along the lines of “beyond the truth that we know” (“not reducible to the physical” is another one), they are deliberately putting their god in an untouchable realm that cannot be proven or disproven; effectively making it indistinguishable from nothing.

<<I think again that you are ... underestimating the ‘what might be known in the future’.>>

There’s a lot we’ll know that we don’t currently know. But experience shows us that the more we learn, the further theists push their god into the realm of the unknowable (what I was referring to), not objective reality.

Like you said earlier, god is outside the world he created, and as long as it appears that he doesn’t exists, that’s where theists will keep him.

<<Finally, in terms of people that existed over 2000 years ago, there has never been as much sources from the time and since the time, as with Jesus Christ.>>

And you don’t think that a god who threatens Hell is obliged to make his existence as clear as day? Doesn’t he want a personal relationship with his creations?

<<The amazing thing about the Christian religion is not that so much has been written, but that most of it is not read, but ignored due to prejudice.>>

No, it’s ignored because none of it is reliable. For example...

<<What are the 4 gospels if not first-hand accounts of the life of Jesus Christ? They are biographies written at the time.>>

No, they are hearsay accounts written decades after the alleged Jesus.

Continued...