SO WHERE WAS CHRIST (YESHUA) IN OUR FESTIVITIES?

[Gofer Blue]

Purple Haze 2: TBG clearly defines himself as a rather sophisticated intellectual and thus is obliged to dismiss any form of religious faith (a la Richard Dawkins).

Is that meant to pass as mature debate? Exchanging personal insults is rather juvenile and disingenuous, don't you think?

It's not that difficult to discuss matters rationally.

As you are well aware we have had several debates in the past on this subject and we both understand each other's point of view so I'm sorry but I'm not going to go over old ground yet again. BTW I don't regard my comment as an insult but probably rather close to the truth actually judging by your response! Feel free to call me a gullible inadequate who is scared of death as most posters on here have done from time to time.

Oh deary, deary me. More of the same, it seems. Please get back to me when you are prepared to have a sensible debate without ad hominem and over-emotive comments. Surely you are better than this and able to debate the actual contents of a post.

What is there to debate about with you in regard to this post? You don't believe there was a person called Jesus Christ so therefore Christmas means nothing to you other than that described by the OP, Steve the Tea. What should be a simple celebration to remember the greatest gift (free too) ever given has been hijacked by grateful commercial enterprises who in turn have hoodwinked millions of people into believing that unless they take part in the absurd "spending fest" (see below) they will somehow be letting their children/spouses/families down if they do not buy the latest "must have" presents.

Gofer

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Purple Haze 2: TBG clearly defines himself as a rather sophisticated intellectual and thus is obliged to dismiss any form of religious faith (a la Richard Dawkins).

Is that meant to pass as mature debate? Exchanging personal insults is rather juvenile and disingenuous, don't you think?

It's not that difficult to discuss matters rationally.

As you are well aware we have had several debates in the past on this subject and we both understand each other's point of view so I'm sorry but I'm not going to go over old ground yet again. BTW I don't regard my comment as an insult but probably rather close to the truth actually judging by your response! Feel free to call me a gullible inadequate who is scared of death as most posters on here have done from time to time.

Oh deary, deary me. More of the same, it seems. Please get back to me when you are prepared to have a sensible debate without ad hominem and over-emotive comments. Surely you are better than this and able to debate the actual contents of a post.

What is there to debate about with you in regard to this post? You don't believe there was a person called Jesus Christ so therefore Christmas means nothing to you other than that described by the OP, Steve the Tea. What should be a simple celebration to remember the greatest gift (free too) ever given has been hijacked by grateful commercial enterprises who in turn have hoodwinked millions of people into believing that unless they take part in the absurd "spending fest" (see below) they will somehow be letting their children/spouses/families down if they do not buy the latest "must have" presents.

From the you.gov website: "UK households are projected to spend £792m (3.46%) less on Christmas this year than they did in 2011, but are still expected to spend approximately £22bn on gifts, cards and decorations, and food and drink this holiday season".

Sorry, I can't find a statement I made that denies the existence of a man called Jesus. Would you be so kind as to copy that statement here for me?

[Gofer Blue]

Ah ha, wriggle,wriggle. I know a lot of people called John, but I doubt if any of them wrote the Gospel of John!

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Ah ha, wriggle,wriggle. I know a lot of people called John, but I doubt if any of them wrote the Gospel of John!

"You don't believe there was a person called Jesus Christ"

[Gofer Blue]

Ah ha, wriggle,wriggle. I know a lot of people called John, but I doubt if any of them wrote the Gospel of John!

I'm not wriggling at all. I merely asked you to substantiate your statement:

A case of "mais n'enculons pas des mouches" I think my friend (forgive me if my French is not up to it)! I'm sure we both know that there are people called Jesus (there are lots of them living in Spain and Mexico I believe) but you know and I know I was referring specifically to Jesus (the) Christ. Christianity to you is simply unsubstantiated folklore/myth. You cannot believe in one without the other. Sorry.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Ah ha, wriggle,wriggle. I know a lot of people called John, but I doubt if any of them wrote the Gospel of John!

I'm not wriggling at all. I merely asked you to substantiate your statement:

"You don't believe there was a person called Jesus Christ"

Do you believe in the Adam and Eve story and the talking snake? If so, what evidence is there to substantiate that story?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Ah ha, wriggle,wriggle. I know a lot of people called John, but I doubt if any of them wrote the Gospel of John!

I'm not wriggling at all. I merely asked you to substantiate your statement:

"You don't believe there was a person called Jesus Christ"

A case of "mais n'enculons pas des mouches" I think my friend (forgive me if my French is not up to it)! I'm sure we both know that there are people called Jesus (there are lots of them living in Spain and Mexico I believe) but you know and I know I was referring specifically to Jesus (the) Christ. Christianity to you is simply unsubstantiated folklore/myth. You cannot believe in one without the other. Sorry.

Is it fact or folklore?

[Gofer Blue]

Ah ha, wriggle,wriggle. I know a lot of people called John, but I doubt if any of them wrote the Gospel of John!

I'm not wriggling at all. I merely asked you to substantiate your statement:

"You don't believe there was a person called Jesus Christ"

A case of "mais n'enculons pas des mouches" I think my friend (forgive me if my French is not up to it)! I'm sure we both know that there are people called Jesus (there are lots of them living in Spain and Mexico I believe) but you know and I know I was referring specifically to Jesus (the) Christ. Christianity to you is simply unsubstantiated folklore/myth. You cannot believe in one without the other. Sorry.

And you accuse me of going off on a tangent! Take a good look at the links I provided. You know EXACTLY what I was trying to say mate. Just wish there was a wriggly worm smilie I could use. Bye.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Ah ha, wriggle,wriggle. I know a lot of people called John, but I doubt if any of them wrote the Gospel of John!

I'm not wriggling at all. I merely asked you to substantiate your statement:

"You don't believe there was a person called Jesus Christ"

A case of "mais n'enculons pas des mouches" I think my friend (forgive me if my French is not up to it)! I'm sure we both know that there are people called Jesus (there are lots of them living in Spain and Mexico I believe) but you know and I know I was referring specifically to Jesus (the) Christ. Christianity to you is simply unsubstantiated folklore/myth. You cannot believe in one without the other. Sorry.

You went off at a tangent there. I merely asked you to substantiate your specicic comment, which you have not managed to do. If you look up the definition of folklore you will see that much of it consists of stories handed down orally from generation to generation. Events that once happened, such as a deluge, may be woven into a story but that doesn't mean that the story represents only truths.

2. You are not prepared to answer a question that I posed and which is germane to the discussion.

[Colon Man]

TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus. I too believe that there was a man on whom the gospels were based (or, possibly, an amalgamation of different men) but I do not believe he was a deity.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus. I too believe that there was a man on whom the gospels were based (or, possibly, an amalgamation of different men) but I do not believe he was a deity.

The post immediately above attest to this phenomenon. And isn't it funny that when I eventually posed a relevant question (after answering many myself) the poster chooses to disappear?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus. I too believe that there was a man on whom the gospels were based (or, possibly, an amalgamation of different men) but I do not believe he was a deity.

Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

Above yours, that is

[TruBlue]

TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus. I too believe that there was a man on whom the gospels were based (or, possibly, an amalgamation of different men) but I do not believe he was a deity.

Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

The post immediately above attest to this phenomenon. And isn't it funny that when I eventually posed a relevant question (after answering many myself) the poster chooses to disappear?

The one thing I find with religious people is that when asked to prove something they often get extremely tetchy. Gofer Blue is a perfect example. Although in fairness usually it's about religious nonsense rather than claiming someone said something when they didn't.

[Richyrich]

TBG never stated there was no one called Jesus.

I, on the other hand seriously doubt there was a man called Jesus.

The first writings of a figure called Jesus were in the letters of Paul and Paul openly admits he ONLY saw Jesus in revelation after crucifixion and never in human form. Paul's sect was just one of many Jewish cults at that time and they took Jesus from a verse in the old testament.

The gospels are myth and are just the euhemerism of Jesus.

[Gofer Blue]

TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus. I too believe that there was a man on whom the gospels were based (or, possibly, an amalgamation of different men) but I do not believe he was a deity.

Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

The OP is correct in that there is no requirement in the Bible that we should celebrate the birth of Christ but my question would be: why not? It depends what you mean by celebrate. Certainly not as the "world" celebrates Christmas as I have already indicated as an orgy of extravagance (£22 billion or about one-fifth of the total annual NHS budget spent in a few weeks). The OP also asks what would God make of it all I suspect we already know from the character of Jesus!

[Taunton Blue Genie]

TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus. I too believe that there was a man on whom the gospels were based (or, possibly, an amalgamation of different men) but I do not believe he was a deity.

Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

The post immediately above attest to this phenomenon. And isn't it funny that when I eventually posed a relevant question (after answering many myself) the poster chooses to disappear?

No, I didn't state that I "believe in the 'historical' Jesus". You are making things up again. I must admit that I am finding it extremely tiresome correcting you every time you fabricate comments that you imagine that I have made.

[Gofer Blue]

TBG - In reply to this comment by the poster Calon Lan: "TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus", you said: Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

Now you state that you don't you believe in the existence of an historical Jesus, in which case why did you not correct Calon Lan?

[Blues Boy]

TBG - In reply to this comment by the poster Calon Lan: "TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus", you said: Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

Not stating something doesn't mean that someone else can make a false statement and assign it to the other party. However, I'm not sure that you are bright enough to twig that obvious fact and you are making yourself look like a complete fool.

[Baloo]

TBG - In reply to this comment by the poster Calon Lan: "TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus", you said: Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

I think you need to let this one go.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

TBG - In reply to this comment by the poster Calon Lan: "TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus", you said: Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

Now you state that you don't you believe in the existence of an historical Jesus, in which case why did you not correct Calon Lan?

I suggest we end this thread as one of us seems to be less that the full shilling. I will let other posters decide who that may be.

[Gofer Blue]

TBG - In reply to this comment by the poster Calon Lan: "TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus", you said: Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

Now you state that you don't you believe in the existence of an historical Jesus, in which case why did you not correct Calon Lan?

I think you are right as TBG is clearly not going to answer this one. It's like me saying at no point did I deny the existence of Queen Elizabeth the Second. What does that tell you about my belief in the existence of Queen Elizabeth the Second?

[Gofer Blue]

TBG - In reply to this comment by the poster Calon Lan: "TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus", you said: Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

Now you state that you don't you believe in the existence of an historical Jesus, in which case why did you not correct Calon Lan?

Agree.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

TBG - In reply to this comment by the poster Calon Lan: "TBG at no point denies the existence of the historical Jesus", you said: Thank you for your observation. I find it deeply worrying that some of my detractors in this thread imagine things in their heads as opposed to what is written on the page.

Now you state that you don't you believe in the existence of an historical Jesus, in which case why did you not correct Calon Lan?

I think you need to let this one go.

Like I said, I think it's best if we put a tin lid on this as one of us seems to be having a problem with veracity and logic.

[Arbiter]

This is quite painful reading and maybe it's best if a neutral party intervenes.

Gofer Blue: Can you paste here any specific wording or statement by TBG that backs up your claims below?

1. 'You don't believe there was a person called Jesus Christ'

2. 'OK so you say you believe in the "historical" Jesus'.

[Blues Boy]

A: You said that there is a red ball in that box
B: No, I didn't say that there was a red ball in that box.
A: So now you are saying that there isn't a red ball in that box
B. I didn't say that either.
A. One of my statements about must be right.
B.

The End. Or should be.