Today I'm neither Angry nor Happy about....

[Worthy4England]

You just repeated what I said above. Just there.

I know. I was just checking. It doesn't make your point any clearer.

[Lord Kangana]

I don't even know what it is we're arguing about anymore. Save to say I have faith that you're wrong. So ner. With knobs on.

[TANGODANCER]

How can I put this...? I rather feel, that if somebody is going to argue as to whether or not we know what date Christ's birthday is, and that somebody is labelled as a Christian, then, when I come along and argue the fact that we don't know whether Christ actually existed or not, then I feel the ball is in your court as regarding what kind of proof you'd present regarding 'his' existence, as opposed to me having to specify what kind of proof I'd expect. No doubt, there is no proof, but that doesn't invalidate my conjecture, but it does however ask questions as to why you'd take his existence as a fact seeing as you yourself acknowledge that proof of his existence cannot reasonably exist.

You might ask why Christianity is so called, or how and why it all got started? We only know anyone existed from historical written records of the times. The New Testament is such a record. If we're not prepared to believe people existed, what does that make historical records?

[Worthy4England]

I don't even know what it is we're arguing about anymore. Save to say I have faith that you're wrong. So ner. With knobs on.

In that case, I shall take comfort from the fact that last time I was wrong, was when I thought I was wrong, but I was right really.

[Prufrock]

I'm now skipping Thursdays because I'm not Norse.

Jesus was Flashman.

[Bruce Rioja]

Golf buddy's on about us perhaps going playing at Nefyn in North Waleshire. I don't know. I really don't.

[bobo the clown]

You'll need some balls, Bruce.

[Bruce Rioja]

You'll need some balls, Bruce.

Indeed. In every sense. Perhaps a hip-flask filled with brandy and port too.

[Harry Genshaw]

Go there every year Bruce. Only to walk the dog and sink a few in the Ty Coch afterwards, but the course is a beauty. Looks damned tough mind

[Bruce Rioja]

Go there every year Bruce. Only to walk the dog and sink a few in the Ty Coch afterwards, but the course is a beauty. Looks damned tough mind

Just spoke with a couple of people that have played it. Seems the consensus is indeed that it's a stunning but somewhat 'challenging' course.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

According to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 Christmas Day is a movable Public Holiday in so much as when Christmas Day falls on a weekday it is a Bank Holiday, and when it falls on a weekend day it is a substitute day and a Public Holiday is declared on the Monday after, in lieu. So yes, it is a Public Holiday, but it is also a Bank holiday when 25th December falls on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday... so triple nerr...

You could point me to where the said Act declares Christmas day a Bank Holiday?

Ok. Take a step back and review the title and opening paragraphs of the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971... as the act is dealing with Bank Holidays, that (just there) is where it declares it...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Great location... not a fantastic golf course, with some naff blind shots etc, but a stunning place.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think you misunderstand my 'argument'. There is no proof (as an example) that Zeus was born on April 1st... not because it is as equally likely that he was born on November 7th, but because he wasn't born at all...

I don't think I do... maybe it'd help if you specified what kind of "proof" you'd expect that someone existed about 2000 years ago...

How can I put this...? I rather feel, that if somebody is going to argue as to whether or not we know what date Christ's birthday is, and that somebody is labelled as a Christian, then, when I come along and argue the fact that we don't know whether Christ actually existed or not, then I feel the ball is in your court as regarding what kind of proof you'd present regarding 'his' existence, as opposed to me having to specify what kind of proof I'd expect. No doubt, there is no proof, but that doesn't invalidate my conjecture, but it does however ask questions as to why you'd take his existence as a fact seeing as you yourself acknowledge that proof of his existence cannot reasonably exist.

i'm struggling to grasp your point/reasoning... for me - the reference to his encounter with Pilate and his death in Josephus's history and in Tacitus's writings (among others) - and the fact that several other people chose to write about his life is compelling enough for me to believe he existed. the idea of having proof of the existence of a person who lived 2000 yrs ago beyond some kind of written record about his life/sayings/deeds/death is what is escaping me - there's as much (probably much MORE) "proof" that Jesus existed as there is anyone else who lived 2000yrs ago...

on what basis do you believe ANY particular individual existed 2000yrs ago - that's my question... (I'm not sure why you are dodging it...)

a further reason is that - unless I have missed it - there is no record of any contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous source that denied the existence of jesus... If his entire existence was made up - then I'd have expected there to be some record of someone denying it... but - not a squeak...

furthermore - I am struggling to grasp a motive for such a fabrication... the early church leaders were persecuted, used as human torches and fed to the lions (if you believe Nero existed - though I'm not sure how you could be sure...)

there's certainly more than enough to satisfy my questions as to whether he actually existed.

as for how his life/existence has been interpreted and used/abused - well, that's a whole different ballgame...

To me, this is obvious. It's obvious that it's obvious to you too. The problem is that my obvoius fails utterly to overlap your obvious.
Let me try a Wittgenstein argument:

A) a person declares themselves a Christian.
A1) the declared Christian believes that a 'person' called Christ was an historic person
A2) furthermore, he believes that this historic person has 'claims' which justify him being the 'founder' of why the person declares himself to be Christian.
B) but the Christian (who believes Christ to be both A1 - historic and A2 - divine, argues that because he's 2000 years old it is not possible, due to the inadequate historic records at our disposal, to definitively say whether he was born on 25th December or not.

C) Another person comes along and tries to point out that B is irrelevant given the fact that A2 is the stumbling block to any kind of logic.

C1) declares A + A1 + B may all be correct, but A2 nullifies any claim to try to reason about this 'person' called Christ, because you aren't arguing about a person, .you're arguing about a myth.

Does that help...?

[Annoyed Grunt]

Say what now?

[thebish]

no.

basically - the weight of evidence that Jesus existed is more than enough to pass my "did a person live 2000 years ago" belief-threshold.

so - i don't see what your problem is. i believe it is a whole lot more likely that he did exist - overwhelmingly more likely - than he didn't - so I am happy to proceed on that basis.

maybe for you - it's different. you have a different "did a person live 2000 years ago" belief-threshold. good luck with that!

[thebish]

i am more convinced that Jesus existed - i have more evidence for that - than I am that you exist as an actual person.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

no.

basically - the weight of evidence that Jesus existed is more than enough to pass my "did a person live 2000 years ago" belief-threshold.

so - i don't see what your problem is. i believe it is a whole lot more likely that he did exist - overwhelmingly more likely - than he didn't - so I am happy to proceed on that basis.

maybe for you - it's different. you have a different "did a person live 2000 years ago" belief-threshold. good luck with that!

As I said, my obvious is not yours. My problem isn't that he existed, he may well have done. My problem is that there is no evidence that he is the person who did the things that founded a religion...
If you have difficulty finding eveidence he was born on 25th December, I have much more difficulty finding evidence that he raised Lazarus from the dead.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Golf buddy's on about us perhaps going playing at Nefyn in North Waleshire. I don't know. I really don't.

Is that where that pub is? the Red House (only in Welsh).The one voted second best beach bar in the world... The one I went to and they served warm beer in plastic glasses, the nice people. That one?

[William the White]

i am more convinced that Jesus existed - i have more evidence for that - than I am that you exist as an actual person.

Really - did Christ ever manage 14.43 posts a day anywhere?

I'm convinced Spotto's assiduous presence, with its consistency of intervention, means that such a person exists now and is in communication with us (however much of a blessing that may be perceived as in 2000 years)...

I'm pretty convinced that Christ existed as a real person, that there is evidence for it and, as a matter of opinion, it looks like he was a remarkable human being with a vision of morality that I can find myself sharing in many ways, though I'm sorry about his capacity for self-delusion (as reported by his followers)...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

i am more convinced that Jesus existed - i have more evidence for that - than I am that you exist as an actual person.

I bet Jesus never sent you a nativity set...