Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Then you are agnostic about Jesus existing?
Because you've tried (unsuccessfully) to make a strong case that he did NOT exist and was constructed.
One article from a biased blog isn't evidence that all the scholars are wrong and you're right.
If you claim Jesus was constructed, you need evidence.
Where is your evidence. Who constructed him and how did they do it?
Who lied?”
i said many pages ago im 50/50 about him existing (as a character the biblical bloke is based on) and him not existing at all....
i do NOT in any way believe in the biblical magician.
ive clarified my position, why dont you clarify which version all these historians think existed?
how can i produce evidence jesus was a construct?... well i look at the ACTUAL FACTS... which is what a silence that screams does. you will ignore it because you have no reasonable explanation to excuse the evidence, or lack of it, a silence that screams highlights.
given a silence that screams presents the known, unbiased, facts then historians MUST conclude that in all probability he didnt exist. biased historians and even the unbiased ones start from a position of believing he existed in the first place... this is the problem... they accept the early biblical references and the later accounts that were based on early biblical accounts.
but it cannot be assumed he existed, you HAVE to strip away all the assumptions and conjecture.... THATS what a silence that screams does, and uncomfortably for you, it leaves the very existence of jesus in serious doubt.
can this religion be a construct?.... of course it can, because by thinking christianity is THE truth, by default all other religions must be false, constructs, proving it can be done.
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Mushy, what you don't get is that it's totally illogical to ask me to refute the possibility that Jesus didn't exist.”
i know, its like....it IS asking you to recant your religion. you and others arent going to do that, so will argue endlessly using bad evidence, stretched points, assumption and conjecture all frim heavily biased pov to ignore the real facts.
Quote:
“In future there will be the possibility that you and I didn't exist. Or the possibility that we are computer simulations.
That is irrelevant to what is being discussed.
Quite different though from your claim that Jesus was a construct, a deliberate invention.
Isn't it.”
here you go again, lowering jesus to that of us! IT DOESNT MATTER WHETHER WE EXIST OR NOT... the future of all mankind doesnt depend on us!
its absolutely crucial to your religion that not only did jesus exist, but WAS the magician the bible depicts.
the very fact that we are debating whether jesus existed or not proves he totally failed as the saviour of mankind to make a big enough impact , whilst 'creation' 'gods' known work is quite clear, unambiguous, precise.
you ask for proof on christianity being a construct, id cite the inaccuracy, contradiction, of the bible (supposed to be gods word) vs 'creation' - the natural world. we know the natural world exists , we can see it, examine it, explore it, understand its intricacy .
the bible and creation clearly dont have the same author.... pretty damning proof that christianity is a construct id say, then add in the lack of any supporting evidence and its pretty clear that the religion is a construct and believers are deluded.