ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags historical jesus , jesus

Reply
Old Yesterday, 07:40 PM   #1561
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,344
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
A lot of things are claimed in the NT, many of which are obviously not true. But that doesn't mean a Historical Jesus didn't exist.
Untrue claims in the NT does not make Jesus a figure of history.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
And in the US in 2017, according to official records more people attended Trump's inauguration than Obama's! Just because the numbers were inflated doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Trump is a known liar and a known figure of history.

Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father- a figure of fiction.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Can't you read? Back stories are typically given to fictional characters. The NT does give Jesus a backstory. That doesn't mean he must have existed - on the contrary a suspiciously convenient backstory could be an indication that the character is fictitious.
NT Jesus was born of a Ghost as admitted by Jesus cult writers. NT Jesus never ever had any history. He was a Ghost story.

[
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
By rejecting the backstory, you are weakening your own argument!
Your back story fables do not make any sense. I deal with the written evidence from antiquity. Jesus cult writers admitted their Jesus was a water walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost.
Their Jesus never ever existed.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Yes, I know. But just 'arguing' (ie. asserting without evidence) is not enough. You have to prove your theory. Repeating the same claim ad nauseam won't do it.
You have no historical evidence at all that your Jesus existed or was likely to exist. You simply used the Jesus stories from the orifices of NT authors to fabricate a fictional HJ.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
You see, it's possible that despite the obvious fictions in the NT and lack of corroboration from outside sources, Christianity could have been started by a Jew whose name was Jesus - even if nothing said about him in the NT is accurate. For a modern parallel, just look at what Trump's supporters say about him. Then imagine they wrote a book about him - it would be filled to the brim with fiction, but Trump is a historical person.
Based on writings attributed to Josepjus, Tacitus and Suetonius there was no Messianic ruler of the Jews in the time of Pilate or up to at least c 70 CE.

The Jews expected their Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE.

Jesus the Messiah since the time of Pilate is utter fiction.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Your problem is you have identified that the Jesus described in the Bible could not have existed (which is obvious), but you have not shown that a man called Jesus could not have started the religious movement that became Christianity. That is what most people think of when we say 'a historical Jesus' - not a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting being - a man.
Your problem is that you have identified that the Jesus in the Bible could not have existed and have a fabricated some other fictional character from the orifices of the NT authors.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The 'earliest' depiction of Jesus in the Bible is of a man who claimed he was was God's son and did some magic tricks. Later in the story he was put to death, then purportedly resurrected shortly before ascending to heaven - never to be seen again.
Please, please, please!!! I will not be hood-winked by your amnesia or dishonesty.

In the NT, it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father.
You believe the Son of the Ghost was really human??
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If you read that story through the eyes of his followers, it's not much different from what Trump's followers might tell you about him (even including being 'chosen by God'). But Trump is a historical figure. Even if all other records of his existence were destroyed and the only writings left were those of his most fervent 'believers', it still wouldn't prove that he didn't exist.
Jesus cult believers stated that their Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father.

Do You have evidence to show that Jesus was not a Ghost story.

When NT Jesus was walking on water his disciple believed he was a Ghost.

Ghosts were believed to be real beings in antiquity and even up to today.

People in the Roman Empire believed Ghost stories and claimed Romulus and Remus were born of a Ghost.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Obviously, and I wouldn't attempt to. But this is irrelevant. Even the most accurate biographies of real people contain errors and 'facts' that could be disputed. How inaccurate does it have to be before we decide that it was not based on an actual person? You may arbitrarily decide that there is no 'there' there, but others don't have to agree. While there is still a possibility that there was a real man behind the stories, you can't justify dismissing it outright. You need to prove that a real person could not have been behind it - even if every part of it is full of distortions, exaggerations and inventions. Otherwise it's no different from claiming Trump doesn't exist based on what his followers say about him.
Inaccurate NT Jesus stories do not make him a likely figure of history.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Oh dear. You are the one arguing that obvious lies and inventions are evidence that Jesus did not exist. You need to back up that claim with more than just 'because the Bible contains obvious lies and inventions'.
Obvious lies and inventions have always been used to argue against existence. The so-called HJ is a direct product of the lies and inventions from the orifices of NT authors.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul were all obvious lies and inventions. They never ever existed.

Last edited by dejudge; Yesterday at 07:50 PM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:56 PM   #1562
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,539
First of all, about theheno's contrast between Christians being too little-known to write about or well-known enough to be blamed for a calamity: I see no contrast there. There's nothing at all unrealistic about a group that most people pay no attention to most of the time getting blamed for something, either without most people having any idea what the blamer is talking about or with people recognizing the name even though that name never had much attention called to it otherwise. For the latter, imagine if somebody famous were to try to pin some big bad thing on Quakers or Mennonites or Bahaʼi... or Mormons, outside of a few western states. For the former, consider any of dozens of cults centered on separate individual gurus scattered all around, which are active right now but you haven't heard of and won't until they do something newsworthy. Or, consider Obama & Clinton blaming the behavior of the mob at Benghazi on some video that did exist but which nobody had seen or heard of before. (It's not often admitted by people who don't buy into the conspiracy theories about what happened later, but one doesn't need to buy into those in order to admit the fact that the Obama Administration really did say that, or that it really was thoroughly obscure until they did.)

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No in terms of religion 2) is the one that reflects most of recorded history.
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
How could a religion start without a real human figure as it's central supernatural deity (because Jesus was described as the supernatural scion of God)? Well the answer is that it probably started in exactly the same way as all the hundreds and thousands of other religions started, where the supernatural deity at the heart of the religion never existed at all (although for all of those religions the deity was claimed to be certainly real ... and lots of witnesses claimed to see all of those thousands of deities doing all sorts of things on the Earth and in the skies).

If people thousands of years ago could invent a fictitious god for all those other religions...
But the problem is that they didn't "invent" them. There are at least two massive differences between what normally happens with religious stories and "invention".

1. Gods, and iconic humans of a distant past like Adam or Abraham or Pandora or Achilles, are not suddenly made up all at once by one particular story-teller. Remember, people believe(d) in them, and people don't just believe in a sudden new invention they've never heard of, but they do believe in, and pass on slight modifications of, ideas their cultures already had all along going back thousands of centuries. They evolve age after age, from an essence of nature or such, to gradually getting more & more personified, to getting some other personality trait mixed in that wouldn't have originally fit, to depersonifying back more toward a vague concept of an essence but a slightly different essence now, to shifting over with a new set of cultural paradigms to personify when something else about the tribe's culture or circumstances change, and so on, continuously, from one human lifespan to the next. The changes can be drastic but they take a long time. Nobody gets to just say somewhere along the line "I've just invented a new one, so now you'll all believe this one I just concocted is true" and be taken seriously by people who didn't have such a belief before. That's just not how cultural evolution works.

2. They also generally developed from the sky down, not from the ground up. They're results of the human tendency to either act as if parts of the natural world, like the sky or the sea or trees, thought like humans, or use a hypothetical single representative individual as a stand-in for psycho-social concepts like sin, generosity, agriculture/nomadism, and violence. Their role in a story is, or at least starts out as, to be the sky itself or violence itself or whatever, just in human-like form, and as such, they're not expected to be anywhere near the same place & time as the audience or seem very much like real people the audience would have ever interacted with. Their names are often even simply the word for the thing they represent; Fortuna, for example, is not just the goddess of luck/fate; it's also actually just fate, so when you say "Fortuna" does something to you, you're literally saying luck/fate does it. Enkidu didn't have horns/antlers because somebody just felt like making up a story about a guy with horns/antlers; he had them because pairing him with a king of a great civilization (Gilgamesh) was pairing the civilized and the wild together, so he was not just a guy but a "wild man" archetype, wildness itself (or at least an in-the-wilderness lifestyle) personified, just as a king was his civilization personified. That contrasts wildly with Jesus, who had no particular part of the grand conceptual order of the cosmos to be a bipedal form of.

So the question isn't just whether most religious (or otherwise culturally iconic) characters have been based on real people or not; it's what the alternative origin for them is instead of that, and what role it plays in its culture. And it's normally not just "somebody just suddenly made it up and others immediately fell for it", but something else more gradual, distant, gradual, non-human, symbolic, meta-cultural, and gradual, not just somebody suddenly popping up from nowhere and dropping a shiny brand-new myth on everybody else and talking them into starting a new religion based on it when the audience didn't have any such belief ten minutes before hearing this sudden new story.

Spontaneous invention all at once ex nihilo that immediately actually convinces a bunch of people to seriously believe something they didn't before (not just retell the story for fun) seems to be unprecedented elsewhere. I don't know of a single established example. Where can I find one? Gods and cosmic-icon-type human characters don't count, because of both how long they take to develop and where they develop from. And if Jesus's origin isn't either of those two, then "embellished from one or a few real people" is all I have left, especially given that we have independent documentary corroboration of the presence of precisely the kind of people who would need to have been around for him to get embellished from.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:00 AM   #1563
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,033
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
So, when was Jesus ever a real human?
most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BCE and that Jesus' preaching began around CE 27–29 and lasted one to three years. They calculate his death as between CE 30 and 36.

Quote:
You know that according to the NT Jesus was born of a Ghost yet you claim [by amnesia or dishonesty] that according to the NT Jesus was a man.

Please look at the NT again.

Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Jesus was never human always fiction.
Alexander the Great was the son of king Philip of Macedonia and queen Olympias, he claimed to be the son of a god. As a consequence, stories about his miraculous procreation were needed and provided. I seem to recall that ultimately he was deemed son of Zeus. But, like Jesus, Alexander was human not fiction - merely surrounded by the fiction that coalesced around him.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:15 AM   #1564
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,344
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
First of all, about theheno's contrast between Christians being too little-known to write about or well-known enough to be blamed for a calamity: I see no contrast there. There's nothing at all unrealistic about a group that most people pay no attention to most of the time getting blamed for something, either without most people having any idea what the blamer is talking about or with people recognizing the name even though that name never had much attention called to it otherwise. For the latter, imagine if somebody famous were to try to pin some big bad thing on Quakers or Mennonites or Bahaʼi... or Mormons, outside of a few western states. For the former, consider any of dozens of cults centered on separate individual gurus scattered all around, which are active right now but you haven't heard of and won't until they do something newsworthy. Or, consider Obama & Clinton blaming the behavior of the mob at Benghazi on some video that did exist but which nobody had seen or heard of before. (It's not often admitted by people who don't buy into the conspiracy theories about what happened later, but one doesn't need to buy into those in order to admit the fact that the Obama Administration really did say that, or that it really was thoroughly obscure until they did.)
The fundamental problem with your argument is that you cannot show that any person called a Christian was a believer or follower of the Jesus cult.

It is the continued acts of amnesia or dishonesty that continue to propel the absurd HJ argument.

Again and again, based on writings attributed to those who worshiped the son of the Ghost it is stated that people who did not believe the stories of Jesus were called Christians since the time of Claudius.

Again and again, no non-apologetic writer of the 1st century mentioned any character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Again and again, it cannot be assumed that any mention of people called Christians must be about NT Jesus.

Examine Justin's First Apology.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

Justin's First Apology
Quote:
There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him............................................... .... And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art............ And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.

And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians.....
http://earlychristianwritings.com/te...oguetrypho.htm

Examine Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.

Quote:
And, 'Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.'
There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin............................... Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.)

Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other name........
There is simply no historical evidence to show that people called Christians in the time of Nero referred to anyone who believed the Jesus Christ stories or that there were Jesus Christ stories at that time.

In addition, the word Christians has been conclusively proven to be manipulated in the copy of Tacitus Annals 15.44.

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Quote:
... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin ...

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[16] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.
How long can this repeated amnesia or dishonesty continue??


Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
But the problem is that they didn't "invent" them. There are at least two massive differences between what normally happens with religious stories and "invention".

1. Gods, and iconic humans of a distant past like Adam or Abraham or Pandora or Achilles, are not suddenly made up all at once by one particular story-teller. Remember, people believe(d) in them, and people don't just believe in a sudden new invention they've never heard of, but they do believe in, and pass on slight modifications of, ideas their cultures already had all along going back thousands of centuries. They evolve age after age, from an essence of nature or such, to gradually getting more & more personified, to getting some other personality trait mixed in that wouldn't have originally fit, to depersonifying back more toward a vague concept of an essence but a slightly different essence now, to shifting over with a new set of cultural paradigms to personify when something else about the tribe's culture or circumstances change, and so on, continuously, from one human lifespan to the next. The changes can be drastic but they take a long time. Nobody gets to just say somewhere along the line "I've just invented a new one, so now you'll all believe this one I just concocted is true" and be taken seriously by people who didn't have such a belief before. That's just not how cultural evolution works.
Haven't you read the NT?

It is claimed Jesus existed from the beginning that he was God Creator.

John 1
Quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God 2 The same was was in the beginning with God 3 All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
2. They also generally developed from the sky down, not from the ground up. They're results of the human tendency to either act as if parts of the natural world, like the sky or the sea or trees, thought like humans, or use a hypothetical single representative individual as a stand-in for psycho-social concepts like sin, generosity, agriculture/nomadism, and violence. Their role in a story is, or at least starts out as, to be the sky itself or violence itself or whatever, just in human-like form, and as such, they're not expected to be anywhere near the same place & time as the audience or seem very much like real people the audience would have ever interacted with. Their names are often even simply the word for the thing they represent; Fortuna, for example, is not just the goddess of luck/fate; it's also actually just fate, so when you say "Fortuna" does something to you, you're literally saying luck/fate does it. Enkidu didn't have horns/antlers because somebody just felt like making up a story about a guy with horns/antlers; he had them because pairing him with a king of a great civilization (Gilgamesh) was pairing the civilized and the wild together, so he was not just a guy but a "wild man" archetype, wildness itself (or at least an in-the-wilderness lifestyle) personified, just as a king was his civilization personified. That contrasts wildly with Jesus, who had no particular part of the grand conceptual order of the cosmos to be a bipedal form of.
Jesus cult Christian claimed their Jesus was produced after God came down from heaven and impregnated a Virgin.

Ariistides Apology
Quote:
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High.

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel.......
Jesus was developed from the sky.

Last edited by dejudge; Today at 03:19 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:55 AM   #1565
theheno
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 9
Thanks for the response Delvo. So am I correct in thinking that you accept the generally accepted dates, 33AD, Peter in the 50's, Nero and the fire about 15 years after the epistles? Unlike what I was told earlier, do you think tacitus was speaking about followers of Jesus, or others as dejudge stated? I've just now looked at what tacitus said, Christianity had been checked in Judea but had again broken out there and in Rome, and an immense multitude of them were convicted. Does this mean in about 20 years, Christianity was checked, arose again, spread to Rome and elsewhere, to such an extent that Nero could have an immense multitude convicted? By the way I'm not arguing a point, just trying to understand your thinking, I think I understand the reasoning on the other side of the debate now.
theheno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:48 AM   #1566
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,928
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Bah! One of these days somebody will dig up the original notebooks used by some of the faithful, as they followed Jesus around and noted down his utterances. The RCC will grab them and on the shelf next to the Turin Shroud they will go.

Well indeed, one day something may turn up that shows Jesus was indeed a real person. Though it seems that countless numbers of people have been looking for evidence about Jesus almost since he was first mentioned in the gospels and letters. And so far, whilst biblical scholars and church leaders say that biblical writing is totally convincing to the point of "certainty", anyone with even the slightest concern for objectivity and reasonable caution can see that the claimed evidence is simply not there.

So, people have been looking for a very long time. But so far there's nothing better than the miraculous gospels and letters of religion.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:30 AM   #1567
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BCE and that Jesus' preaching began around CE 27–29 and lasted one to three years. They calculate his death as between CE 30 and 36..
The nativity scenes in gMatthew and gLuke contradict one another and cannot be reconciled.

Marcion's gLuke lacked the birth story. It was likely added by a Catholic redactor mid 2nd century to make the gLuke suitable for orthodox use. In short, there is no history in the birth story of gLuke.

Since gMark lacked a birth story it was unknown to him. So gMatthew invented one. Again there is no history there that can be shown to apply to a real dude named Jesus.

When we know the gospel writers were writing large amounts of fiction we cannot assume they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.





Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:38 AM   #1568
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,539
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
When we know the gospel writers were writing large amounts of fiction we cannot assume they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.
And you, along with the others who've been making that accusation repeatedly, know perfectly well that nobody is assuming that, so why pretend anybody is?
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:57 AM   #1569
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,163
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Bah! One of these days somebody will dig up the original notebooks used by some of the faithful, as they followed Jesus around and noted down his utterances. The RCC will grab them and on the shelf next to the Turin Shroud they will go.
The notebooks of the faithful would not be sufficient to prove the veracity of JC's exploits. You would have to have a copy of His personal diary as well. How else would we know about the facts of what the Devil said to Him and His responses?
Luke 4:1-13 for example?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:56 AM   #1570
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,928
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post

When we know the gospel writers were writing large amounts of fiction we cannot assume they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.


Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk

And you, along with the others who've been making that accusation repeatedly, know perfectly well that nobody is assuming that, so why pretend anybody is?[

So, you say that you are NOT ”assuming they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.”?? You are NOT using anything at all in the gospels as likely or possible truth about Jesus?? Well, then where on earth are you getting what you think is evidence to show that he probably existed??

If you understand why the gospels are so discredited by their constant fictional reporting of Jesus, then why aren't you rejecting those gospels entirely as any sort of credible honest source/witness to Jesus?

Alternatively, if like most of the more sceptical people here who are setting aside the gospels as too discredited to be counted as a source of valid evidence, then what are you using for evidence of a real Jesus?

I am not seeing where the evidence is for a real Jesus that was ever known to any of those biblical writers. And against that I am seeing, and everyone else can surely see, a vast mountain of evidence proving beyond all credible doubt that the gospel writers and the writer of Paul's letters were creating their own beliefs about Jesus from their imagination ... an imagination that was clearly being massively fuelled by their religious fanaticism that was very strongly bound together with Old Testament scripture that had been such a huge influence on everyone in that region since at least 500BC and probably since 1000BC!

But even so, even despite all of that, most of us here who are sceptical or wary about the almost universal belief in a real HJ, are only going as far as saying that (a) we are not convinced that he probably existed (i.e. not to a level rising above 50% likelihood), and (b) that evidence universally claimed by bible scholars, church leaders, and various other people is not remotely as convincing or reliable as they are claiming or believing it to be.

What do you think the actual evidence is for a real Jesus?

Which writers of that time are you counting as a reliable source that had either known, seen or heard Jesus ... or else who reliably named anyone else who was their reliable believable witness to Jesus?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.