Matthew Le God

Mary is thought to have been 14 years old when God decided to impregnate her. Does that make God a paedophile rapist?

I visit lots of people over a number days. Not only on the 25th This time of year is convenient to do that because people are off work for an extended period.

I didn't say he was a child killer. I said the passage states Jesus criticises Jews for not killing their children as the commandment states they should if they are disobedient. It is clearly you that doesn't understand the scripture! Why would a loving God have commandments that are punishable by death???

It does not make it religious. Religious would be acknowledging God and Jesus, neither of which happened!

I have not denied the reason we have the holiday in this country is due to the Christian heritage in the country. That does not mean my day was in any way religious. Eating food - not religious Giving presents - not releigious Spending time with family - not releigious The national holiday allows the family to all have the same day off, so that makes it convenient to travel and visit them. It does not mean the reason you are their is for a religious celebration to your day. I bet a lot of Jews and Muslims in England also used Christmas day and time off work and school to visit family, does that mean they celebrated Jesus like you think I did?

To celebrate something you need to acknowledge it, mention it. Non of which happened, so no celebration of Jesus occurred. We had food, spent time together as a family, watched films and gave each other presents. Why can't you grasp that is in no way connected to Jesus? I can't celebrate the life of someone I don't think evidence exists to proof he existed!

I've given evidence above.

I can very easily say he wasn't involved in my day and that of my family. Because I experienced my day. You weren't there!

Luke 2:7-8 Shepherds would not be watching their flocks by night in late December

Even if he existed... 25th December isn't when his birthday would be. It is merely Christianity using the date of another older festival. Just because both involve exchanging of gifts does not mean the exchanging of gifts is for the same reason. You are bizarrly jumping to conclusions based on exchanging of gifts. There are lots of reasons why gifts are exchanged, birthdays are one of many so your point is completely irrelevant and a red herring!

Even if he existed... 25th December isn't when his birthday would be. It is merely Christianity using the date of another older festival. As I've told you numerous times now and you choose to ignore time after time after time. Eating food and visiting family with no religious element is not celebrating Jesus. He was completely missing from the day. It is bizarre you can't grasp if Jesus isn't involved in the day then it is not a celebration of him! You will more than likely bring this nonsense up again later as if I hadn't given numerous rebuttals to you!

What? How is that relevant?

I've answered this twice already... I have not said he did not exist as a historical figure, perhaps he did or the story of him is a mish-mash of a number of men. What I said is that the claim he existed has not met its burden of proof. Saying it hasn't met its burden of proof is not the same as saying he definitely did not exist as a historical figure. I'm withholding belief until the evidence supports the claim. That is how evidence works!

Ok... what evidence apart from an old book do you have to believe Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead? Extraordinary claims (like those) require extraordinary evidence... an Old Book is not good evidence, anything can be written in a book.

You are confusing these two... a - Jesus does not exist b - the evidence for Jesus existing does not meet its burden of proof I have only ever said b), not a). They are not the same thing! Saying someone is innocent is not the same as saying they are not gulity. Jury's decide if someone is guilty or not guilty, not if they are innocent or not innocent. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim.

You cited a source 83 years after his supposed death. That isn't good evidence. I'll say it again... I have not said he did not exist as a historical figure, perhaps he did or the story of him is a mish-mash of a number of men. What I said is that the claim he existed has not met its burden of proof as it lacks credibility due to nothing being contemporary and outside the Bible to validate it.

I have not said Jesus did not exist... I don't think the claim has met it's burden of proof. Those are two different things! There is a huge wealth of evidence to support the existence of Julius Ceasar. There is nothing to gain from lying about his existence.

A man with wounds in his hands, is not strong evidence the man in front of you is Jesus. You have a very low bar on the level evidence you need to believe something! Such low bars of acceptance is what leads to brainwashing, indoctrination and gullibility!

1) Faith is the excuse people give for believing in something without good evidence. 2) I don't have faith in anything. 3) I have not said Jesus did not exist... I don't think the claim has met it's burden of proof. Those are two different things!

A random Wikipedia article?

He is not remotely contemporary, 83 years after the supposed life of Jesus! Plus in terms of Jesus... the extraordinary elements of the story require extraordinary evidence... an old book is not extraordinary. Anything can be written in a book, it doesn't make compelling evidence for the miraculous.

Nothing exists from the time of his supposed life, it is only decades later.

Contemporary with his existence, not contemporary with 2019. Nothing exists from the time of Jesus' life, only decades later. So... nothing contemporary!

Contemporary evidence supporting his existence exists. Nothing contemporary for Jesus.

1) I did not wish anyone Merry Christmas in this thread... I corrected Happy Christmas with Merry New Year to Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2) I did not celebrate Christmas... I visited family and ate food