Notices
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 303
Like Tree117Likes

Thread: Evidence for Christ

  1. #101  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I haven't read all of this thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned already. There is one element to this that I think has been overlooked, all of jesus' 11 remaining disciples as far as I'm aware all died as marytrs save one I think. I can understand dying for something you've heard about, but no one dies for a lie they created, if there is an assumption he didnt exist
    There isn't any better evidence for the existence of the apostles than there is for the existence of Jesus. And even if they did exist, their deaths are a matter of Christian tradition, not historical documentation.

    What you're saying, essentially, is that Snow White must have existed because the Seven Dwarfs helped her.

    Granted, but if thats the case, you now also have to problem of how the early church spread across the roman empire, as the primary spreaders would have been the apostles. St peter basillica is an example (I'm not catholic but the building does indictate peter went to rome)
     

  2. #102  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes

    There isn't any better evidence for the existence of the apostles than there is for the existence of Jesus. And even if they did exist, their deaths are a matter of Christian tradition, not historical documentation.

    What you're saying, essentially, is that Snow White must have existed because the Seven Dwarfs helped her.

    Granted, but if thats the case, you now also have to problem of how the early church spread across the roman empire, as the primary spreaders would have been the apostles.
    I don't see the problem. Could you expand on that? I mean, I don't see it couldn't have been early followers or practitioners instead of apostles.

    St peter basillica is an example (I'm not catholic but the building does indictate peter went to rome)
    No it doesn't. No more than all the UFO memorabilia at Roswell indicates an alien craft crashed in New Mexico. There's no concrete evidence that Peter even existed, let alone is buried at the Basilica.
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Firstly, in regards to my point, if Jesus didn't exist and by default the apostles as well, there a couple of problems 1. the faith would not have made it out of Israel because the people in the region would have cross referenced the belief, found it false and it would have been discarded quite quickly2. The Greeks in the time period were still considered knowledgable, they wouldn't have been easily fooled by a concocted faith, that in there eyes would been seen as a 'cult'Also in both examples, they both had there own faith systems on which they had believed for generations.Point taken on St. Peter's basilica, I had realised that just after I posted the comment
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Firstly, in regards to my point, if Jesus didn't exist and by default the apostles as well, there a couple of problems 1. the faith would not have made it out of Israel because the people in the region would have cross referenced the belief, found it false and it would have been discarded quite quickly
    If they were going to do that, they'd have found no validation for the entirety of the goofy faith.
    This is not a strong argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    2. The Greeks in the time period were still considered knowledgable, they wouldn't have been easily fooled by a concocted faith,
    This is as outlandish as the argument, above. The Greeks had mythologies of their own invention. This argument too, is exceptionally weak.

    Now, I don't know if any of those apostles and Jesus actually existed. I think they probably did... but there's no real evidence that they did. Jesus Barabbas probably existed, and Pontius Pilate probably did, too.
    But in the end, to believe they existed is faith.
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    [QUOTE=Neverfly;405233]
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Firstly, in regards to my point, if Jesus didn't exist and by default the apostles as well, there a couple of problems 1. the faith would not have made it out of Israel because the people in the region would have cross referenced the belief, found it false and it would have been discarded quite quicklyIf they were going to do that, they'd have found no validation for the entirety of the goofy faith.
    This is not a strong argument.
    My point was that jesus would have had to be the focal point of the religion, he would have traveled the region, if he didnt exist and people had made him up for whatever motive, many of the early letters in the bible would have been questioned by the people of the region, causing an effective implosion of the religion, please refrain from using insults to faith or religion, this is an discussion about it not an excuse to insult it

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    2. The Greeks in the time period were still considered knowledgable, they wouldn't have been easily fooled by a concocted faith,This is as outlandish as the argument, above. The Greeks had mythologies of their own invention. This argument too, is exceptionally weak.
    Yes but they also were exceptional philosiphers in all areas, a beilef in something does not diminish the ability of intellect or make them gullible also I am open minded, although there is no evidence whatsoever, I dont believe people simply make things up and write them down or create a religon from nothing, the greeks are no exception.
     

  6. #106  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    My point was that jesus would have had to be the focal point of the religion, he would have traveled the region, if he didnt exist and people had made him up for whatever motive, many of the early letters in the bible would have been questioned by the people of the region, causing an effective implosion of the religion
    So far you haven't presented anything but appeals to emotion and speculation.

    please refrain from using insults to faith or religion, this is an discussion about it not an excuse to insult it
    Insults?
    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Yes but they also were exceptional philosiphers in all areas, a beilef in something does not diminish the ability of intellect or make them gullible
    Strawman.

    also I am open minded
    Evidently not.

    I dont believe people simply make things up and write them down or create a religon from nothing, the greeks are no exception.
    Depends on what you mean by "from nothing" but the facts and the evidence show that you're 100% incorrect.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    I'm using the fact of how the religion spread over the region as quickly as it did by going back to the source, in truth outside the bible there small references by joesphus and tactius, however, documentation wise it is unlikely there would be other sources as most scholars would have been more concerned with roman affairs. There was no need to say goofy faith and in general on a scientific forum id have thought that would be evident, how would you describe open mindedness?
     

  8. #108  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I'm using the fact of how the religion spread over the region as quickly as it did by going back to the source, in truth outside the bible there small references by joesphus and tactius, however, documentation wise it is unlikely there would be other sources as most scholars would have been more concerned with roman affairs.
    And your point?

    There was no need to say goofy faith and in general on a scientific forum id have thought that would be evident
    Yeah, somewhat tautological, then again saying "cold snow" is too.
    It's not insulting just redundantly factual.

    how would you describe open mindedness?
    You appear to be arguing from the position of one who holds that faith 1 - ergo by definition you're not open minded.

    1 Based on the paucity of logic, reasoning and rationality in your posts.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  9. #109  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    My point was that jesus would have had to be the focal point of the religion, he would have traveled the region, if he didnt exist and people had made him up for whatever motive, many of the early letters in the bible would have been questioned by the people of the region, causing an effective implosion of the religion, please refrain from using insults to faith or religion, this is an discussion about it not an excuse to insult it
    I think it is important to note that this wasn't a religion that Jesus (1) invented de novo. There is evidence (2) that many people were teaching similar variations on traditional Jewish thought. So it is possible that many different teachers' ideas got collected under the name Jesus (much as several Greek stories are published under the name Homer).

    (1) Just assuming he as a real character for the moment.
    (2) The Gnostic Gospels for example.
    Meraxes likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    my point is simply that jesus and the apostles had to have existed for it to have the impact it did, otherwise there is no basis or logical reason that it should spread and eventually consume one of the most dominant empires in history.
    There was no need to say goofy faith and in general on a scientific forum id have thought that would be evident
    Yeah, somewhat tautological, then again saying "cold snow" is too.

    It's not insulting just redundantly factual.
    factual implies being objective, you are being subjective, i will not be baited

    faith does not rob a person of logic, reasoning or rationality, as with my previous statement I have logically disproven your statement
     

  11. #111  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    my point is simply that jesus and the apostles had to have existed for it to have the impact it did, otherwise there is no basis or logical reason that it should spread and eventually consume one of the most dominant empires in history.
    Oh, assumption again.
    (Plus the lack of logic I mentioned earlier).

    factual implies being objective, you are being subjective, i will not be baited
    And another.

    faith does not rob a person of logic, reasoning or rationality
    That's not quite what I wrote.

    as with my previous statement I have logically disproven your statement
    And wrong once more.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    My point was that jesus would have had to be the focal point of the religion, he would have traveled the region, if he didnt exist and people had made him up for whatever motive, many of the early letters in the bible would have been questioned by the people of the region, causing an effective implosion of the religion, please refrain from using insults to faith or religion, this is an discussion about it not an excuse to insult it
    I think it is important to note that this wasn't a religion that Jesus (1) invented de novo. There is evidence (2) that many people were teaching similar variations on traditional Jewish thought. So it is possible that many different teachers' ideas got collected under the name Jesus (much as several Greek stories are published under the name Homer).

    (1) Just assuming he as a real character for the moment.
    (2) The Gnostic Gospels for example.
    True, that is quite possibly, I am unfamiliar with the other teachers could you put a couple of examples so i can research?
     

  13. #113  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    True, that is quite possibly, I am unfamiliar with the other teachers could you put a couple of examples so i can research?
    It is decades since I was interested in this sort of thing. I'll see if I still have any of the books I read ...

    (For some weird reason, I thought Freakonomics was one of them. Apparently not.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    [QUOTE=Dywyddyr;405244]
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    my point is simply that jesus and the apostles had to have existed for it to have the impact it did, otherwise there is no basis or logical reason that it should spread and eventually consume one of the most dominant empires in history.
    Oh, assumption again.
    (Plus the lack of logic I mentioned earlier).
    Instead of just saying its an assumption could you actually put evidence to prove me wrong rather than opinion
    factual implies being objective, you are being subjective, i will not be baited
    And another.
    so your now implying a fact, which is proven correct, is now possibly someones opinion?
    faith does not rob a person of logic, reasoning or rationality
    That's not quite what I wrote.
    But its what you implied
     

  15. #115  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Instead of just saying its an assuption could actually put evidence to prove me wrong rather than opinion
    Since all you have offered is an opinion I fail to see why I should do any different: "That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence".

    so your now implying a fact, which is proven correct, is now possibly someones opinion?
    Really? What "fact" did you have? What "fact" have you "proven correct"?
    YOU are the one that claimed it was "subjective" (i.e. an opinion). Maybe you're confused.

    But its what you implied
    Nope.
    Learn to read.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  16. #116  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Firstly, in regards to my point, if Jesus didn't exist and by default the apostles as well, there a couple of problems 1. the faith would not have made it out of Israel because the people in the region would have cross referenced the belief, found it false and it would have been discarded quite quickly
    How would they have cross-referenced the belief? Mesopedia.org?

    The apostles wouldn't have been any more able to prove the truth of their claims than anyone else, so I fail to see how their existence (or lack thereof) factors into the spread of the religion. What difference does it make if it's Paul or someone else? The message is what matters, not the messenger. And as you can see by looking at the makeup of modern Christianity, the faith adopted many characteristics of contemporary pagan beliefs so as to make it more palatable. Ever notice how Jesus's virgin birth and three days dead followed by a miraculous rebirth are common tropes in pagan religions? That's not an accident. Christianity in its early days was quite pliable.

    2. The Greeks in the time period were still considered knowledgable,
    As opposed to the infamous Dumb Greeks of the Middle Ages?

    they wouldn't have been easily fooled by a concocted faith, that in there eyes would been seen as a 'cult'
    Christianity was a cult. And Christians were persecuted as such from Nero's time right up to Constantine and the edict of Milan. And that's just the Roman Empire; Christians were persecuted outside of its reach up to that time and beyond. They still are in some places where they make up the minority.

    Of course, the point here is that just because the Greek philosophers were wise doesn't mean that all Greeks were immune to the lure of faith. Certainly ancient Greece wasn't irreligious, so the foundation was there. Same with the Romans. And I don't see how the apostles would have made a difference where other Christians couldn't. There's nothing to suggest that.

    Also in both examples, they both had there own faith systems on which they had believed for generations.Point taken on St. Peter's basilica, I had realised that just after I posted the comment
    Read what I wrote above regarding early Christianity's willingness to adopt pagan rituals and characteristics. Why do you think we celebrate Jesus' birth on December 25? People convert. It happens.
    Last edited by Meraxes; March 22nd, 2013 at 06:00 AM.
     

  17. #117  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    my point is simply that jesus and the apostles had to have existed for it to have the impact it did, otherwise there is no basis or logical reason that it should spread and eventually consume one of the most dominant empires in history.
    We already know that's not true. Look at how many people believe in UFOs, Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc.. Mormonism is a wholecloth fabrication, and there were no apostles or Christ to spread the message, yet people believed even though the messenger was a known crook and con-man. His own wife didn't believe him, yet look at Mormonism today.

    And Strange raises an excellent point in that Christianity wasn't exactly a brand-new faith, nor was the message coming from just one source. It was (and still is) apocalyptic Judaism. So it wouldn't have been entirely unfamiliar to people hearing the message, save for the news of impending doom.
    Neverfly and stonecutter like this.
     

  18. #118  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Christianity was a cult.
    And, because of the sociocultural situation (I was tempted to use milieu but it sounds a bit pretentious from an engineer) it may have been a cult whose time had come. It had a strong revolutionary element which would have appealed to people who felt they had been invaded by a foreign power. You can see parallels in the world today.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    You have a good point, however there still needs to be a epicentre to the metaphorical explosion, I was mainly refering to the region in which jesus did his ministry, the apostles certainly couldnt alter what people across the whole region, as well as traders etc, had seen as it wasnt just the apostles who witnessed the events and therefore the messege, if they did they would have certainly been discredited, this is refering to the bible. In regards to paganism and christianity, it was probably on a practical basis rather than theological, so in that area, chritstianity was very pliable. Although this isnt direct evidence, from what i can see you would still need jesus and the apostles to exist, or at least jesus to exist.
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I haven't read all of this thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned already. There is one element to this that I think has been overlooked, all of jesus' 11 remaining disciples as far as I'm aware all died as marytrs save one I think. I can understand dying for something you've heard about, but no one dies for a lie they created, if there is an assumption he didnt exist
    Branch Davidians? Heaven's Gate? Solar Temple?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Sophomore Phlogistician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    my point is simply that jesus and the apostles had to have existed for it to have the impact it did,
    Why? Both Roman and Greek pantheons were widespread, both mentioned interaction with mortals (Hercules was the child of Zeus, and a mortal, sound familiar?) are you implying therefore that there must be parts of Greek and Roman mythology that are necessarily true, because they were popular?
     

  22. #122  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, because of the sociocultural situation (I was tempted to use milieu but it sounds a bit pretentious from an engineer) it may have been a cult whose time had come. It had a strong revolutionary element which would have appealed to people who felt they had been invaded by a foreign power. You can see parallels in the world today.
    Sure, that could only have helped broaden its appeal. Of course, I don't suppose Christianity would have gained the traction it did if not for Constantine's conversion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    You have a good point, however there still needs to be a epicentre to the metaphorical explosion, I was mainly refering to the region in which jesus did his ministry,
    If the religion exists today, obviously there was a general region in which it was first formed, but that doesn't necessitate Jesus' existence. There may have been--and probably were--many rabbis preaching apocalyptic messages. There may have even been a historical person named Jesus who was one of these people, and he may have even been of some importance. But it's most likely that he is an amalgamation of several men, and that most of his exploits as recorded in the bible are fictitious. IN other words, it might have been a half-dozen people preaching this message that begat what would become Christianity.

    the apostles certainly couldnt alter what people across the whole region, as well as traders etc, had seen as it wasnt just the apostles who witnessed the events and therefore the messege, if they did they would have certainly been discredited, this is refering to the bible.
    The bible was written years and years after the fact, and the stories within are probably mostly fabricated. To your point, though, you'll notice the total lack of record outside of the bible of Jesus' teachings and works. If he was really doing all of this, if he was really stirring as much crap as the bible claims, then why did none of the contemporary historians mention him? Josephus, mentioned earlier in the thread, is the earliest account--which is only a line in passing, and not even about Jesus, but his brother, James--and that was written fifty-some years after his purported death. So it seems you've accidentally made a point against your own argument. Whoda thunkit?

    In regards to paganism and christianity, it was probably on a practical basis rather than theological, so in that area, chritstianity was very pliable.
    I don't know exactly what you mean by this. The reason Christianity conformed to pagan traditions was to make it an easier sell to people they wished to convert. It doesn't matter what the basis for conversion was--clearly the Christians didn't care, since they were changing fundamental attributes of their savior in the process--it only matters that they converted. And they did.

    Although this isnt direct evidence, from what i can see you would still need jesus and the apostles to exist, or at least jesus to exist.
    I don't see how you could say that. Hopefully the rest of my post will disabuse you of this faulty logic.
     

  23. #123  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    True, that is quite possibly, I am unfamiliar with the other teachers could you put a couple of examples so i can research?
    There are a couple of good chapters in Cows, Pigs, Wars & Witches: The Riddles of Culture Vintage: Amazon.co.uk: Marvin Harris: Books. That might get you started.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    True the bible was written after the events, but you don't write about some one while they live, people generally write about some one after they have died and in historical terms the amount of time wasn't that long after, each of books/letters in the New Testament were written, as far as I'm aware, between 10 and 150 years after his death, which compared to many historical figures is reasonable short. Also if you notice the writing style, it is not written to entertain rather inform people of events. Outside of the bible, Ive mentioned this earlier, I'm not surprised he isn't mentioned as most scholars of the time would have been more concerned about affairs in Rome and the emperor.Christianity wasn't really considered a threat by Romans, it was in its infancy and there were more pressing issues such as rebellions, it was the majority of rabbis or Pharisees who thought he was a threat. It could be possible with the group of rabbis theory but I doubt it, mainly because most of them were more concerned about the Romans, than reforming or evolving there religion. In Christianity, the date itself is kind of irrelevant, the point is love god love people through Christ, in its simplest form, so the dates and celebrations, although are considered important are a minor issue, the adoption of pagan festivals is simply a practical concept, besides this was after the early church period.I think that's everything, I'm using my mobile so forgive me if I've missed parts of your answer.
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    True, that is quite possibly, I am unfamiliar with the other teachers could you put a couple of examples so i can research?
    There are a couple of good chapters in Cows, Pigs, Wars & Witches: The Riddles of Culture Vintage: Amazon.co.uk: Marvin Harris: Books. That might get you started.
    Thank you, I'll look that up
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    True the bible was written after the events, but you don't write about some one while they live, people generally write about some one after they have died...
    Fair point, but how do you account for the earlier versions of the Gospel of Mark where there is no resurrection? If as you say these are true accounts of fantastic events, then why would the earliest known Gospel ends with an empty tomb and women vowing not to tell anyone? This ending and the subsequent modifications imply a fictional account that evolved with time.

    Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, appears to be a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at a description of the empty tomb, which is immediately preceded by a statement by a "young man dressed in a white robe" that Jesus is "risen" and is "going ahead of you into Galilee." The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[43] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9–20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.[44] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.[44]
    Gospel of Mark
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    i think jesus was more a martin luther king kind of guy, helping the average or poor. and bringing someone back to life, well i don't know, maybe he knew about cpr lol. i have no reason to not believe he existed, but the stories about him sound like silent posts; where every new messangeres added/or misinterpreted the message received.

    he could have been able to move the masses of the working/serving class that caused an uproar in the ruling class, asking for his removal.

    in short, i think he existed, but time made/turned him into something he wasn't.
     

  28. #128  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    True the bible was written after the events, but you don't write about some one while they live, people generally write about some one after they have died and in historical terms the amount of time wasn't that long after, each of books/letters in the New Testament were written, as far as I'm aware, between 10 and 150 years after his death, which compared to many historical figures is reasonable short.
    No, this is nonsense. There are contemporary accounts of every other noteworthy figure of the time, so the absence of Jesus in the record until well after his death is a big problem. If he were in fact as popular and influential as is claimed in the bible, then he would have shown up in the writings of contemporary historians. But he doesn't. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean he didn't exist, but it does mean that he wasn't anything at all like the character of the New Testament.

    Also if you notice the writing style, it is not written to entertain rather inform people of events. Outside of the bible, Ive mentioned this earlier, I'm not surprised he isn't mentioned as most scholars of the time would have been more concerned about affairs in Rome and the emperor.Christianity wasn't really considered a threat by Romans, it was in its infancy and there were more pressing issues such as rebellions, it was the majority of rabbis or Pharisees who thought he was a threat. It could be possible with the group of rabbis theory but I doubt it, mainly because most of them were more concerned about the Romans, than reforming or evolving there religion. In Christianity, the date itself is kind of irrelevant, the point is love god love people through Christ, in its simplest form, so the dates and celebrations, although are considered important are a minor issue, the adoption of pagan festivals is simply a practical concept, besides this was after the early church period.I think that's everything, I'm using my mobile so forgive me if I've missed parts of your answer.
    So you don't think a miracle-working apocalyptic rabbi who tormented the Jewish establishment was worthy of a few lines in history? Come on, who do you think you're fooling with this BS? Now you're just spouting apologetics rather than trying to learn.

    Historians chronicle history. There's no reason why such a popular figure would have been omitted from the record. Unless, of course, he wasn't nearly as popular or influential as the bible claims he was.
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Fair point, but how do you account for the earlier versions of the Gospel of Mark where there is no resurrection? If as you say these are true accounts of fantastic events, then why would the earliest known Gospel ends with an empty tomb and women vowing not to tell anyone? This ending and the subsequent modifications imply a fictional account that evolved with time.

    Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, appears to be a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at a description of the empty tomb, which is immediately preceded by a statement by a "young man dressed in a white robe" that Jesus is "risen" and is "going ahead of you into Galilee." The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[43] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9–20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.[44] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.[44]
    Gospel of Mark[/QUOTE]

    the ending may have been lost/destroyed, never included or perhaps the writer died/was killed before it was finished, to be honest it is mainly speculaton and I don't know. Thats mainly the reason it is put into the modern versions of the bible that there are at least 2 endings, so that the reader isnt decieved or left confused. It should also be noted that the earliest gospel was preceded by some of the letters such as james and the 2 corinthians, as the order of the bible isnt chronological, so it is a problem i'll grant you but with the supporting evidence of the letters the blanks as it were can be filled.
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Fair point, but how do you account for the earlier versions of the Gospel of Mark where there is no resurrection? If as you say these are true accounts of fantastic events, then why would the earliest known Gospel ends with an empty tomb and women vowing not to tell anyone? This ending and the subsequent modifications imply a fictional account that evolved with time.

    Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, appears to be a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at a description of the empty tomb, which is immediately preceded by a statement by a "young man dressed in a white robe" that Jesus is "risen" and is "going ahead of you into Galilee." The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[43] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9–20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.[44] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.[44]
    Gospel of Mark[/QUOTE]

    the ending may have been lost/destroyed, never included or perhaps the writer died/was killed before it was finished, to be honest it is mainly speculaton and I don't know. Thats mainly the reason it is put into the modern versions of the bible that there are at least 2 endings, so that the reader isnt decieved or left confused. It should also be noted that the earliest gospel was preceded by some of the letters such as james and the 2 corinthians, as the order of the bible isnt chronological, so it is a problem i'll grant you but with the supporting evidence of the letters the blanks as it were can be filled.
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    True the bible was written after the events, but you don't write about some one while they live, people generally write about some one after they have died and in historical terms the amount of time wasn't that long after, each of books/letters in the New Testament were written, as far as I'm aware, between 10 and 150 years after his death, which compared to many historical figures is reasonable short.
    No, this is nonsense. There are contemporary accounts of every other noteworthy figure of the time, so the absence of Jesus in the record until well after his death is a big problem. If he were in fact as popular and influential as is claimed in the bible, then he would have shown up in the writings of contemporary historians. But he doesn't. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean he didn't exist, but it does mean that he wasn't anything at all like the character of the New Testament.

    Also if you notice the writing style, it is not written to entertain rather inform people of events. Outside of the bible, Ive mentioned this earlier, I'm not surprised he isn't mentioned as most scholars of the time would have been more concerned about affairs in Rome and the emperor.Christianity wasn't really considered a threat by Romans, it was in its infancy and there were more pressing issues such as rebellions, it was the majority of rabbis or Pharisees who thought he was a threat. It could be possible with the group of rabbis theory but I doubt it, mainly because most of them were more concerned about the Romans, than reforming or evolving there religion. In Christianity, the date itself is kind of irrelevant, the point is love god love people through Christ, in its simplest form, so the dates and celebrations, although are considered important are a minor issue, the adoption of pagan festivals is simply a practical concept, besides this was after the early church period.I think that's everything, I'm using my mobile so forgive me if I've missed parts of your answer.
    So you don't think a miracle-working apocalyptic rabbi who tormented the Jewish establishment was worthy of a few lines in history? Come on, who do you think you're fooling with this BS? Now you're just spouting apologetics rather than trying to learn.

    Historians chronicle history. There's no reason why such a popular figure would have been omitted from the record. Unless, of course, he wasn't nearly as popular or influential as the bible claims he was.
    Ok i see your point, there are two other possiblilities though, the first is that there was a jewish revolt in 70 AD which is recorded by Josephus, this resulted in the siege and subsequent destruction of the city, if there were records they would have been stored in the city and lost as a result of the destruction. The second is that if the records had survived the destruction they would have most likely remained in the city until the at least the time of the crusades, if they were rediscovered during this period, they would have been sent back to rome and would be stored in the vatican vaults. I have found a website that does explain what I meant earlier by, in historical terms, the records and mentions of jesus by what we do have are quite close to the time period of after his death. The problem is the website is a pro-christian website and I uncertain if i should post the link on here, would it be ok if i copied and paste the relvent information?
     

  32. #132  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Ok i see your point, there are two other possiblilities though, the first is that there was a jewish revolt in 70 AD which is recorded by Josephus, this resulted in the siege and subsequent destruction of the city, if there were records they would have been stored in the city and lost as a result of the destruction.
    I shouldn't have to tell you why this is a ludicrous suggestion, but I sense that I do, so I will: We have contemporary records of other historical figures, and records of those who came before Jesus. So unless only the "Christ and Various Saviors" section of the library burned, I find it hard to believe that Jesus just so happened to be the only person of great import whose information was lost.

    The second is that if the records had survived the destruction they would have most likely remained in the city until the at least the time of the crusades, if they were rediscovered during this period, they would have been sent back to rome and would be stored in the vatican vaults.
    If Rome had historical accounts of Jesus from contemporary historians, they would have made copies and sent them to the four corners of the world. The Church spent the next several centuries apologizing for the lack of historical accounts of their savior, and are known to have forged other accounts to give them a pro-Christian spin (see the Testimonium Flavianum, discussed earlier in this thread). In other words, if they had such evidence of his existence, they would have made good on it hundreds of years ago.

    I have found a website that does explain what I meant earlier by, in historical terms, the records and mentions of jesus by what we do have are quite close to the time period of after his death. The problem is the website is a pro-christian website and I uncertain if i should post the link on here, would it be ok if i copied and paste the relvent information?
    I know what you meant, but if you want to post some additional information or clarification, feel free.
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Its not as ludicrous as it sounds, the account of the destruction of the city gives the impression that it was quite extensive and besides the library in jerusalem was located in the temple, which was the one building that was definiatly demolished in the sacking, even though the soldiers were ordered not to destroy it, but in regards to only information on jesus' being lost, it is highly doubtful that he was the only persons records destroyed but the date of the siege implies that if there were accounts of jesus outside the bible in the temple, it wouldnt have been likely that there more than a handful of copies.

    I have researched a little on the Testimonium Flavianum, it is true the church did forge parts of it however even without these included, jesus is refered to twice and john the baptist as well, which would give some credibility to biblical accounts. From what I could see most scholars have agreed that, if not the jesus part (which certain parts i agree were forged), the part about john the baptist was authentic.

    This is the extract I mentioned about in my earlier post, I hope it shows the context of the new testement, historically speaking, compared to other generally accepted documentation

    Let's start with the first question: Is what the New Testament says about Jesus a true, accurate historical record?
    How do historians determine the accuracy of ancient documents and records?
    Historians look at:

    • How close, in time and geographically, were the writers of the documents to the original events?
    • How many early copies do we have, how close are the copies to the originals (in time)?
    • Do the documents have contradictions or factual inaccuracies?
    • Are the descriptions of locations, roads, structures and geographical features confirmed by archeology?
    We have copies of other ancient documents that are considered historically accurate. For example, Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000. We have ten copies from that time period. They are considered by historians to be accurate.
    The Roman historian Tacitus wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in about 115 AD. We have one copy of the first six books in this series. It was copied in about 850 AD. Books 11 through 16 are available in a copy made about 1050 AD. Books 7 through 10 are lost. The Annals of Imperial Rome is considered by historians to be accurate.
    We have nine Greek manuscripts of first century historian Josephus' work titled, "The Jewish War." These copies were made in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. They are considered by historians to be accurate.
    Aristotle lived around 350 BC. The earliest copy of his epic poems comes from A.D.1100 -- over 1,400 years after his death. We have five early copies of Aristotle's works.
    We have eight copies, dated about 900 A.D., of the history of Thucydides. He lived in the mid-400's BC. Historians have long ago determined, based on these eight manuscripts created 1300 years after the original was written, that the history of Thucydides is accurate.
    Homer's Iliad, the bible of the ancient Greeks, composed in 800 BC has an impressive 650 ancient Greek copies available -- the earliest is from the second and third centuries AD - 1000 years after the original was written.
    So how does the New Testament compare with these universally accepted historical documents?
    We have over 22,000 early copies of ancient New Testament manuscripts! Some papyri manuscripts date to the first century, within a few decades of when the original was written. There are over 5,600 ancient Greek manuscripts. Over 9,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts. And over 8,000 ancient manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian. The earliest copies date so close to when the originals were written that the time difference is essentially non-existent.
    We have papyri copies containing portions of the Gospels, the book of Acts, Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews made in the first, second and third centuries. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri date to about the year 200. The M. Martin Bodmer Papyri also date to about the year 200. The Saint John's Library Papyri -- containing a portion of the book of John -- was made in Egypt and dates to between the years 98 and 130 AD (The
    book of John was written in approximately 90 AD)."
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I have researched a little on the Testimonium Flavianum, it is true the church did forge parts of it however even without these included, jesus is refered to twice and john the baptist as well, which would give some credibility to biblical accounts. From what I could see most scholars have agreed that, if not the jesus part (which certain parts i agree were forged), the part about john the baptist was authentic.
    You should read the other books of Josephus as well. In Antiquities of the Jews 11.1, he writes of Jesus the brother of John, and was a friend of Bagoses, who had promised to procure him the High Priesthood. This Jesus was murdered by John. In Antiquities 17.13.1, he writes of Jesus be Sie who held the high priesthood for five or six years. This Jesus was replaced by Eleazar ben Boethus.

    There is Jesus son of Ananias, who was a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the Jewish War against Rome began in 66 CE, went around Jerusalem prophesying the city's destruction. The Jewish leaders of Jerusalem turned him over to the Romans, who tortured him. As the Romans whipped him he would cry out "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!." The procurator Albinus took him to be a madman and released him. He continued his prophecy for more than seven years until he was killed by a stone from a catapult during the Roman siege of Jerusalem during the war.(Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 of the historian Titus Flavius Josephus, The War of the Jews, or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem).

    There was Judas of Galilee (Yehuda of Galilee) where around 6 C.E. he led a rebel resistance to the census imposed by the Romans for tax reasons by Quirinus in Iudeaa (Judea) Province. The Romans crushed the rebellion. This is chronicled in both the Jewish Wars and Antiquities of the Jews.

    There is the Egyptian (see post#13) who was a prophet that battled the Romans on the Mount of Olives, which is noted in Antiquities (Book 20.Chapter 8. Section 6).

    Finally there is a notation in Antiquities 12: Chapter 5, where Josephus recognizes three of the many rebellious Jews being crucified by the Romans and asks Titus Caesar to take them down. Two died, but one recovered.

    I suspect that the Gospels writers lifted many ideas from the writings of Josephus, which is why John the Baptist is mentioned. I find the tale of Joseph of Arimathea (a city not mention elsewhere in all of history), a word play for Joseph ben Matthias which was Flavius Josephus original name, to be inspired from Antiquities 12.5.
    Strange and Meraxes like this.
     

  35. #135  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Goat herders wrote about rainfall = evidence? Perhaps I'm not imaginative enough.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    the last 2 paragraphs sound pretty cool.
     

  37. #137  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Its not as ludicrous as it sounds, the account of the destruction of the city gives the impression that it was quite extensive and besides the library in jerusalem was located in the temple, which was the one building that was definiatly demolished in the sacking, even though the soldiers were ordered not to destroy it, but in regards to only information on jesus' being lost, it is highly doubtful that he was the only persons records destroyed but the date of the siege implies that if there were accounts of jesus outside the bible in the temple, it wouldnt have been likely that there more than a handful of copies.
    This is a non-sequitur. You have to understand that according to the bible, Jesus is very well-known, with people coming from all over the region to see him. If he was even half as famous as all that, he would have appeared in many contemporary writings. Yet he does not, despite the fact that many historical records from that time period are extant today. I'm sorry, the idea that there wouldn't have been much written about him is ridiculous.

    I have researched a little on the Testimonium Flavianum, it is true the church did forge parts of it however even without these included, jesus is refered to twice and john the baptist as well, which would give some credibility to biblical accounts. From what I could see most scholars have agreed that, if not the jesus part (which certain parts i agree were forged), the part about john the baptist was authentic.
    You haven't researched much, apparently. The Testimonium Flavianum is a nickname for a passage by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, not a work unto itself. And it is the entirety of the passage that is believed to be a forgery, committed precisely because Jesus is not prevalent in historical writings. There is only one other mention of "Jesus, who was called Christ," and the passage wasn't about him; it was about his brother, James. MrMojo cover this in his post above.

    This is the extract I mentioned about in my earlier post, I hope it shows the context of the new testement, historically speaking, compared to other generally accepted documentation
    The argument your apologist friend is trying to make can be summed up like this: "Jesus must exist, because there are so many biblical sources."

    I'm sorry, but the fact that he had a ton of things written about him by his followers in later decades and centuries is not evidence of his existence. If we were simply going to accept biblical sources as reliable evidence, then Jesus' existence wouldn't have ever been in question. But the truth is that they're not reliable, so we need extra-biblical sources to discern the truth. And his absence in the record is pretty damning. It doesn't necessarily mean he, or his historical analog(s), didn't exist, but it does suggest that the biblical stories of this rockstar rabbi are greatly exaggerated.
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Many legends are based on a grain of truth. Don't you think it is not unreasonable to assume that the stories of Jesus can be traced back to some archaic story of a real man?
     

  39. #139  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by markashley View Post
    Many legends are based on a grain of truth. Don't you think it is not unreasonable to assume that the stories of Jesus can be traced back to some archaic story of a real man?
    MrMojo does an excellent job of addressing this in his post here. Basically, the idea is that the Jesus myth is an amalgam of many different sources, both historical and mythological. Whether or not there was an actual man named Jesus who was called Christ is irrelevant, because that man was not the one depicted in the New Testament. In fact, I doubt there was even just one guy called Christ. Think about how many people have claimed to be Jesus since. There are probably hundreds of people--if not more--who claim to be Jesus today, many of whom even have followers, so I don't see how anyone can suggest that mentions here and there of a Christ would necessarily be of just one man. There were probably dozens claiming that title in those days. It's only natural.

    A decent, though not perfect, analogy would be William Wallace. Here is a man whose legendary deeds are mostly mythological, and in some cases the things that really did happened and are attributed to him were really done by someone else. The movie Braveheart actually combines several historical characters into the singular Wallace, which is an accurate representation not of his actual life, but of how his life is portrayed in legend.
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    In truth, I haven't much left I can say, I have only been Christian a year and so my knowledge on this subject, as clearly shown by this discussion, is still in its infancy, however there are a couple of points I have. Although the biblical accounts, would be biased to Jesus, how could it be morphed so drastically into something it, from the points you've stated, most likely was? I mean many of the biblical sources were written not long after his death, so the window of exaggeration is a small one. And with Josephus, most scholars are certain the passage that includes 'Jesus, who was called Christ, who was the brother of James' is authentic and used to distinguish this Jesus from othe Jesus' of the time period.
     

  41. #141  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    In truth, I haven't much left I can say, I have only been Christian a year and so my knowledge on this subject, as clearly shown by this discussion, is still in its infancy, however there are a couple of points I have. Although the biblical accounts, would be biased to Jesus, how could it be morphed so drastically into something it, from the points you've stated, most likely was? I mean many of the biblical sources were written not long after his death, so the window of exaggeration is a small one. And with Josephus, most scholars are certain the passage that includes 'Jesus, who was called Christ, who was the brother of James' is authentic and used to distinguish this Jesus from othe Jesus' of the time period.
    It seems your main interest is apologetics rather than understanding. That's unfortunate.
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    In truth, I haven't much left I can say, I have only been Christian a year and so my knowledge on this subject, as clearly shown by this discussion, is still in its infancy, however there are a couple of points I have. Although the biblical accounts, would be biased to Jesus, how could it be morphed so drastically into something it, from the points you've stated, most likely was? I mean many of the biblical sources were written not long after his death, so the window of exaggeration is a small one. And with Josephus, most scholars are certain the passage that includes 'Jesus, who was called Christ, who was the brother of James' is authentic and used to distinguish this Jesus from othe Jesus' of the time period.
    It seems you have a genuine interest in this part of history. I'd suggest you perform tons of reading for there are more "Christian" writings that didn't make into the Biblical cannons than what did, then put them into a historical and comparative religion point of view (not a theological). I've read many of the books written by Bart Ehrman. I'd suggest Jesus Interrupted, Misquoting Jesus, and Forged: Writing in the Name of God, and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

    "As for the window of exaggeration" you are still basing this assumption that there was actual evidence of an event occurring. Many supporters of the Christian Bible read the stories as they are presently presented. I'd suggest trying to read them in the order of their historical dating. You will discover that descriptions of the "messiah" from the epistles don't match those of the Gospels, yet the epistles are closer to the assumed dating of events. There were many competing religious sects, each writing polemics against the others. Many went as far as manufacturing fake passages about the others, and manufacturing scriptures that supported their own faith. The Letters between Abgar of Edessa and Jesus are such an example of pious fiction that was probably from Eusebius.

    As for the "Jesus, who was called Christ, who was the brother of James", if you read the entire passage it is James that this called Christ who dies and Jesus who lives on. This is Jesus ben Damneus high priest at around 63 AD. King Agrippa made this Jesus the high Priest after firing Ananus. In the Hebrew language "ben" means "son of " in much the same way "bar" means "son of" in Aramaic language. It seems like a christian interpolation to insert "who was called Christ" where there was none. When you have spent the time reading Josephus works, you'll notice that Josephus considered Caesar Vespasian Flavius as the messiah since Vespasian freed him and gave him a commission to write.


    12 Labors of Hercules

    Zoroastriansim

    Early Christian Writings
    Meraxes likes this.
     

  43. #143  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    you'll notice that Josephus considered Caesar Vespasian Flavius as the messiah since Vespasian freed him and gave him a commission to write.
    A pretty unbiased opinion then ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    In truth, I haven't much left I can say, I have only been Christian a year and so my knowledge on this subject, as clearly shown by this discussion, is still in its infancy, however there are a couple of points I have. Although the biblical accounts, would be biased to Jesus, how could it be morphed so drastically into something it, from the points you've stated, most likely was? I mean many of the biblical sources were written not long after his death, so the window of exaggeration is a small one. And with Josephus, most scholars are certain the passage that includes 'Jesus, who was called Christ, who was the brother of James' is authentic and used to distinguish this Jesus from othe Jesus' of the time period.
    It seems your main interest is apologetics rather than understanding. That's unfortunate.
    Surely its logical that on an issue that pretty much defines my personnal faith I would defend it with my own knowledge and understanding of the topic? I have no interest in trying to convince you that christianity is correct, although that would be nice, its hardly appropriate on a science fourm. The subject of the debate is the existance of jesus and I came to this thread to understand more.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    In truth, I haven't much left I can say, I have only been Christian a year and so my knowledge on this subject, as clearly shown by this discussion, is still in its infancy, however there are a couple of points I have. Although the biblical accounts, would be biased to Jesus, how could it be morphed so drastically into something it, from the points you've stated, most likely was? I mean many of the biblical sources were written not long after his death, so the window of exaggeration is a small one. And with Josephus, most scholars are certain the passage that includes 'Jesus, who was called Christ, who was the brother of James' is authentic and used to distinguish this Jesus from othe Jesus' of the time period.
    It seems you have a genuine interest in this part of history. I'd suggest you perform tons of reading for there are more "Christian" writings that didn't make into the Biblical cannons than what did, then put them into a historical and comparative religion point of view (not a theological). I've read many of the books written by Bart Ehrman. I'd suggest Jesus Interrupted, Misquoting Jesus, and Forged: Writing in the Name of God, and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

    "As for the window of exaggeration" you are still basing this assumption that there was actual evidence of an event occurring. Many supporters of the Christian Bible read the stories as they are presently presented. I'd suggest trying to read them in the order of their historical dating. You will discover that descriptions of the "messiah" from the epistles don't match those of the Gospels, yet the epistles are closer to the assumed dating of events. There were many competing religious sects, each writing polemics against the others. Many went as far as manufacturing fake passages about the others, and manufacturing scriptures that supported their own faith. The Letters between Abgar of Edessa and Jesus are such an example of pious fiction that was probably from Eusebius.

    As for the "Jesus, who was called Christ, who was the brother of James", if you read the entire passage it is James that this called Christ who dies and Jesus who lives on. This is Jesus ben Damneus high priest at around 63 AD. King Agrippa made this Jesus the high Priest after firing Ananus. In the Hebrew language "ben" means "son of " in much the same way "bar" means "son of" in Aramaic language. It seems like a christian interpolation to insert "who was called Christ" where there was none. When you have spent the time reading Josephus works, you'll notice that Josephus considered Caesar Vespasian Flavius as the messiah since Vespasian freed him and gave him a commission to write.


    12 Labors of Hercules

    Zoroastriansim

    Early Christian Writings

    I will look those books up, they certainly have got my interest.
    You have a very valid point about the bibical canon/non-canon and reading the bible in the order of date rather than what order they are put in, I will also read the entirety of josephus works when i get the chance. However in regards to why Josephus was freed by Vespasian, that was due to during the jewish wars more specifically the siege of jerusalem, he predicted/had a vision that Vespasian, who was general at the time, would become emperor.
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I will look those books up, they certainly have got my interest.
    In regard to the Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

    Here is a list of historians who may have mentioned Christians or even a person known as christ. None of them provide any evidence for a historical or biblical Jesus.

    JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
    TACITUS (c.112CE)
    PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
    SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
    IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
    QUADRATUS (c.125CE)
    THALLUS (date unknown)
    PHLEGON (c.140)
    VALENTINUS (c.140CE)
    POLYCARP (c.155CE)
    LUCIAN (c.170CE)
    GALEN (late 2nd C.)
    NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)
    and the TALMUD (3rd C. and later)



    Below is a list of other writers (apart from the ones in the above) who were around at the time of Jesus, that wrote nothing whatsoever about him.
    Some even walked the same paths, but heard and wrote nothing.

    Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
    Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD).
    Marcus Manilius


    This next list is from historical writers from shortly after Jesus' time. none of which even mention a Jesus not even as an aside.

    Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
    Petronius Arbiter
    C. Musonius Rufus
    Aulus Persius Flaccus
    Marcus Annaeus Lucanus
    Hero(n) of Alexandria
    Geminus
    Plutarch of Chaeronea
    Justus of Tiberias
    Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople
    Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus)
    Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio)
    Marcus Fabius Quintilianus .
    Publius Papinius Statius

    And here is a random list of some others you may want to look up.
    None wrote anything regarding a Jesus.

    Aulus Perseus (60 AD)
    Columella (1 st. cent. AD)
    Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
    Justus of Tiberious (c. 80 AD)
    Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
    Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
    Lucius Flours (1st-2nd -cent. AD)
    Petronius (d. 66 AD)
    Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
    Phlegon (1st cent. AD)
    Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
    Plutarch (c.46-c. 119 AD)
    Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
    Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
    Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
    Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
    Silius Italicus (.25-101 AD)
    Statius Caelicius (1st cent. AD)
    Theon of Smyrna (c. 70-c.135 AD)
    Valerius Flaccus (1st cent AD)
    MrMojo1 and Meraxes like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
     

  46. #146  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post

    Surely its logical that on an issue that pretty much defines my personnal faith I would defend it with my own knowledge and understanding of the topic? I have no interest in trying to convince you that christianity is correct, although that would be nice, its hardly appropriate on a science fourm. The subject of the debate is the existance of jesus and I came to this thread to understand more.
    Defense shouldn't be your goal. If you were really interested in history, you'd be trying to learn more about it, rather than trying to find ways to convince yourself of the righteousness of your beliefs. You've been given plenty of information that contradicts your faith and your understanding of history, and yet you dismiss it in favor of misconceptions or wish-thinking. You're growing that thick hide beneath which the brain of the believer is impervious to logic and reason...
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post

    Surely its logical that on an issue that pretty much defines my personnal faith I would defend it with my own knowledge and understanding of the topic? I have no interest in trying to convince you that christianity is correct, although that would be nice, its hardly appropriate on a science fourm. The subject of the debate is the existance of jesus and I came to this thread to understand more.
    Defense shouldn't be your goal. If you were really interested in history, you'd be trying to learn more about it, rather than trying to find ways to convince yourself of the righteousness of your beliefs. You've been given plenty of information that contradicts your faith and your understanding of history, and yet you dismiss it in favor of misconceptions or wish-thinking. You're growing that thick hide beneath which the brain of the believer is impervious to logic and reason...
    This thread has given me certainly alot of information that i will research, I am using logic and reason however from what I can see, all I have heard on this post is that the bibical accounts cannot possibly be valid because they were pro-christian, I could use the arguement for say roman documentation detailing roman figures or english scholars recording what english kings did. On top of that Jesus would not be the only historical figure who didnt have contempory sources.

    The list of historical writers given above I have not researched, i will do, but it wouldnt surprise me, as I said earlier, that they didnt write anything about jesus because to them jesus would have been seen as another religous teacher in an empire that is no stranger to religon, as well as the fact that jesus to them was completely harmless to Roman affairs. Perhaps I should also mention that the concept of jesus being a non-historical figure has been contested before and proven quite null and void, this discussion should really be about was jesus what he was depicted as/claimed to be or was he completely exaggerated in what he did, it is not just the bibical accounts that swayed which direction i chose.

    As I said I will research all of the above links/books/texts/writers and post my conclusion on here at a later date, whatever the result, contray to perhaps my wording or some if not all opinions on here, I can and will admit I was wrong, if the conclusion comes to that.
     

  48. #148  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I can and will admit I was wrong, if the conclusion comes to that.
    You say that, straight after posting:
    all I have heard on this post is that the bibical accounts cannot possibly be valid because they were pro-christian
    I.e. claiming that you have an open mind as to the outcome in the same post as you twist what has actually been written to support your pre-formed "conclusion".

    Perhaps I should also mention that the concept of jesus being a non-historical figure has been contested before and proven quite null and void
    Really? Then wheel out those "proofs".

    this discussion should really be about was jesus what he was depicted as/claimed to be or was he completely exaggerated in what he did
    You're joking of course? (Actually I assume not - but you should be).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    I can and will admit I was wrong, if the conclusion comes to that.
    You say that, straight after posting:
    all I have heard on this post is that the bibical accounts cannot possibly be valid because they were pro-christian
    I.e. claiming that you have an open mind as to the outcome in the same post as you twist what has actually been written to support your pre-formed "conclusion".

    Perhaps I should also mention that the concept of jesus being a non-historical figure has been contested before and proven quite null and void
    Really? Then wheel out those "proofs".

    this discussion should really be about was jesus what he was depicted as/claimed to be or was he completely exaggerated in what he did
    You're joking of course? (Actually I assume not - but you should be).

    Not really, my point is the bibical documentation is being dismissed on the grounds that it is written by christians not on its historical insight or information, considering it is the earliest account of jesus' life after his death, i would have thought it would be a source that could be used and show some insight, and although there were cults/religions emerging at the same time, the implication that the writers stole or incorperated other ideas into the bibical accounts is showing a great deal of cynicism being dealt to the writers and hardly prove that they did. Whether he rose from the dead or had a virgin birth is obviously something that should looked at with great scrutiny, my conclusion is based on faith in that regard, there is no real way to know 'emprically'

    I personally, as i have said in regard that I am going to do more research, am clearly not the person best to do this but its not hard to find them, the best place to find where the two arguements are collected the easiest, is wikipedia, it gives both sides of the debate and shows that clearly most scholars are in favour jesus historically existing, with very few scholars disagreeing to that point, in fact several of them have changed there stance.

    No I am not joking, as with my answer to the proof's question, thats kind of the next logical question to ask? unless ive missed something or your implying that if you prove the former of his existance then you by default prove the later?
     

  50. #150  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Not really, my point is the bibical documentation is being dismissed on the grounds that it is written by christians not on its historical insight or information
    Um, no. It's not being dismissed on those grounds.

    Whether he rose from the dead or had a virgin birth is obviously something that should looked at with great scrutiny, my conclusion is based on faith in that regard, there is no real way to know 'emprically'
    Right.

    No I am not joking, as with my answer to the proof's question, thats kind of the next logical question to ask? unless ive missed something or your implying that if you prove the former of his existance then you by default prove the later?
    Huh?
    No, I'm implying that it should be obvious - i.e. if he did exist then his exploits were obviously exaggerated: to a (literally) fantastic 1 degree.

    1 Specifically, the italicised meanings.
    a. Unrestrainedly fanciful; extravagant: fantastic hopes.

    b. Bizarre, as in form or appearance; strange: fantastic attire; fantastic behavior.

    c. Based on or existing only in fantasy; unreal:
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Then what is it being dismissed on?, they are the earliest documented accounts, it was written by those clearly in the region, and by the date those who probably met jesus, what am i missing?
    Now whos being closed minded, you have said basically that if he exists then because his exploits are in your eyes fantastic it cant be possible he did them, that is hardly evidence to suggest he couldnt have or didnt do them, it is merely your opinion, which is why the topic of his exploits are more a matter of subjectivity and I tried to not include them in the debate as this isnt about his exploits more his existence in history
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Then what is it being dismissed on?, they are the earliest documented accounts, it was written by those clearly in the region, and by the date those who probably met jesus, what am i missing...
    Well there has never been any empirical evidence of a immaculate conception, multiple dead people (including the most of the graves in Jerusalem, according to Mathew) rising from the dead, people levitating, healing of the ill with the touch of the hands, and a host of minor claimed miracles. I mean it is hard to accept the claim of something fantastic when there isn't any hard evidence of such an event occurring while acknowledging the people are prone to lie and exaggerate. The gospels themselves can't agree where Jesus was born.
    pavlos and Meraxes like this.
     

  53. #153  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Then what is it being dismissed on?, they are the earliest documented accounts, it was written by those clearly in the region, and by the date those who probably met jesus, what am i missing?
    Now whos being closed minded, you have said basically that if he exists then because his exploits are in your eyes fantastic it cant be possible he did them, that is hardly evidence to suggest he couldnt have or didnt do them, it is merely your opinion, which is why the topic of his exploits are more a matter of subjectivity and I tried to not include them in the debate as this isnt about his exploits more his existence in history
    Have you read the gospels? For one, they claim he worked miracles, which immediately makes them spurious because we have no evidence that such things are possible. This is where the extra-biblical sources come into play: if there was really a man walking on water and turning bread into wine and feeding a ton of people with a loaf of bread and a fish, why didn't anyone write about it? Where are the non-Christian examples of his miracles? And if you're going to say that those are exaggerated by his followers, then you throw the entire document into question, and you're left with a book that nobody can justify accepting as historically accurate.

    Not to mention the fact that they can't even get his story straight. Only Mathew and Luke mention the virgin birth, and neither claim to have this information first-hand. Paul speaks of Mary, but inexplicably fails to mention her giving birth to Jesus as a virgin. They even conflict on how the happy couple found out--in Matthew, an angel tells Joseph of Jesus' birth, and in Luke, Gabriel tells Mary. And you'll notice how neither Mary nor Joseph quite understands what Jesus is up to, or why he acts the way he does. How is it possible that they've both forgotten that their son is the Messiah?

    The authors also conflict on how Jesus ended up in Bethlehem. Luke says there was a census requiring people to return to their home towns, and Matthew suggests that Bethlehem was Mary and Joseph's home in the first place. To the first, there was no such census, and even if there were, that was not how they were conducted. Even if it were possible that a census required everyone to up and return to the place of their births even once in history, surely there would have been either recorded or archaeological evidence to support it. But again, history is silent. To the second, Jesus' nativity story very closely resembles Moses's, with Herod taking the place of the Pharaoh. I think this is intentional, and more of a theological statement than an attempt to chronicle history. The two authors even differ on what happened after he was born, with Luke telling that the family went to Jerusalem and then back to Nazareth, while Matthew has them fleeing to Egypt until Herod's death. These two accounts cannot be reconciled, so I don't see how it could be argued that we should accept them as historical documents. Which history are we supposed to believe, exactly? Mark doesn't even mention Jesus' resurrection!

    So no, it isn't simply because the gospels are written by Christians. (though that should on its own make everyone suspicious) It's because they largely contradict each other, are non-historical in many key areas, and are the only source of any attestations of Jesus' supernatural abilities. These are simply not historical documents.
    pavlos, MrMojo1 and stonecutter like this.
     

  54. #154  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Then what is it being dismissed on?
    It is based on the fact that there are no corroborating documents or evidence.
    NOT because they're Christian.
    Regardless of authorship any single document is not, in and of itself, evidence of anything.
    The same way that no single testimony (or scientific experiment) is evidence for anything.

    Now whos being closed minded, you have said basically that if he exists then because his exploits are in your eyes fantastic it cant be possible he did them, that is hardly evidence to suggest he couldnt have or didnt do them, it is merely your opinion, which is why the topic of his exploits are more a matter of subjectivity and I tried to not include them in the debate as this isnt about his exploits more his existence in history
    What's the weather like in your world?
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    Firstly, this will be my last post on this thread, I will read what is put but wont comment on it. As i have said three times after this time, I am going to do research on the all the evidences and sources as have been provided above, and come to either confirm my current position or disprove it.

    In regard to whether i have read the bible, i have read the whole new testement and several books of the old testement. in regards to miracles concerning jesus, it isnt like the roman or jewish scholars could look up the bbc or sky news to see whether jesus did anything, it would determine if any of them were in the region at the time, if you combine that with the constant wars in this region, refering to the jewish wars of 66AD, the crusades etc, then any orignanal documentation is likely to have been destroyed or lost under jerusalem. Also Pontius Pilate is only mentioned as much as jesus in the historical and bibical text, yet we know he existed, which in my eyes is evidence to prove the point I have just made.

    Each gospel tells us a different perspective and aspect of jesus' life, his birth, his ministry, his trial, his crucifixition, writers of the time, when they did consider anything important to write it would essentially use the major events that had the most meaning in there eyes. This would explain the difference in detail and size of the gospels. If they were identicial then you'd instead accuse them of plagerism.

    When you refer to the census, there was one and the roman way of recording it was that all roman citizens were to return to there family home, after briefly looking it up it turns out the emperor augustus did do regular censuses at intervals in the empire. I am not an expert on this subject so as stated above i will most likely do more research into it.

    But i cant disagree with you in regards to the birth of jesus specifically, at the same time i suspect the biological information that gives us a rough estimate of when he was born would be the only part we can use. You can be sured ill be asking a lot of questions to my friend as well who is studying this topic.
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Each gospel tells us a different perspective and aspect of jesus' life, his birth, his ministry, his trial, his crucifixition, writers of the time, when they did consider anything important to write it would essentially use the major events that had the most meaning in there eyes. This would explain the difference in detail and size of the gospels. If they were identical then you'd instead accuse them of plagiarism.
    Since you've acknowledge that you are doing research, I will only add this: Mark, Luke, and Matthew are called the synoptic gospels for a reason. I would suggest you try doing some parallel reading of the four gospels at the same time. I've always suspected there was only one gospel, that has been revised several times.

    One of first questions I had while in catholic secondary school was, "Why wasn't there a gospel according to (by) Jesus?" For if there was such a document, all the other New Testament books and other "christian" writings would be unnecessary.

    Synoptic Gospels
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Freshman Beyondthought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    46
    This is a very interesting thread... and there is so much to cover I am a little lost as to where I should start... I suppose before I rush into claiming Yhay or Nay on Jesus, I think it is important to understand the political structure of the ancient Near/Middle East during this period. Rome was without question the Power House of the region. It, like their neighbors the Greeks, and the Egyptians to the south, had a very large polytheistic pantheon of Gods. As Rome pushed its boarders and spread its trade it acquired new people with new and unknown beliefs. Rome was a marvel at 'People Moving'. In a time when people stayed with their own kind Rome's citizens were the ancient equivalent of jet-setters; they moved about. This simple fact helped the small clusters of ancient Christians spread their ideas and thoughts. As this cult became more popular among the people of Rome it no doubt took hold. Rome above all feared a mob. If the people we angry enough about anything Rome would fix it.

    - Rome needed a massive amount of wheat feed its people. Egypt was Rome's bread basket. If we look at Rome's diplomacy when it conquered or acquired new lands it ripped the people of their culture and installed their Roman Gods because they were 'stronger'. They did this in Gaul, in Hispania, in Britannica, in Dalmatia, in Greece.... but not in Egypt. Egypt was the only region of the Empire allowed to keep its gods. Why? Some argue that, like the Greeks before them, the Romans found the Egyptian religion to be so pure and so true that they felt obligated to adopt their pantheon. This move was not religious on the part of the Roman Senate, it was political. Egypt would have revolted under such religious persecution and thus would have denied Rome her wheat. Yes, Romans built temples to Jupiter and Mars and Venus in several of their key cities but not in places like Khnum and Karnak. Thus Egypt remained religiously free.

    Rome despised the Christian people. They were used in spectacles at the coliseum and areas all throughout the empire. But as the lesser people of Rome, mainly her Plebs, began to cling to this new growing faith which promised them paradise and jubilation after death unlike the religion of Rome, they demanded liberation. Under the threat of riots, or worse revolution, Rome adopted Christianity as its main religion. If you can't beat them, join them.

    So did Jesus exist? Perhaps. There is no solid proof to say he did. Simple because people wrote about him in such a manner does not mean it is factual. Saint Nick was a real man. But he did not live in a house at the North Pole with a myriad of elves and deliver toys to children via a flying sleigh pulled buy magical dear.
     

  58. #158  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    From Wiki,
    Virtually all contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[9][10] While the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity,[11][12] most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.[4][13][10] Scholars have offered various portraits of the historical Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.[14][15] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.[16]

    Most Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died sacrificially by crucifixion to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return.[17] The majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.[18] A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural.[18][19]

    In Islam, Jesus (commonly transliterated as Isa) is considered one of God's important prophets.[20] In Islam, Jesus is a bringer of scripture, and the product of a virgin birth, but not the victim of crucifixion. Judaism rejects the belief that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.[21] Bahá'í scripture almost never refers to Jesus as the Messiah, but calls him a Manifestation of God.[22]
    What difference does it make? Whether he existed or not is not proof of anything supernatural. "There was a man named Jesus" who claimed to be the son of god. As far as I know there is no substantial evidence that supports this claim.
     

  59. #159  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    Firstly, this will be my last post on this thread, I will read what is put but wont comment on it. As i have said three times after this time, I am going to do research on the all the evidences and sources as have been provided above, and come to either confirm my current position or disprove it.

    In regard to whether i have read the bible, i have read the whole new testement and several books of the old testement. in regards to miracles concerning jesus, it isnt like the roman or jewish scholars could look up the bbc or sky news to see whether jesus did anything, it would determine if any of them were in the region at the time, if you combine that with the constant wars in this region, refering to the jewish wars of 66AD, the crusades etc, then any orignanal documentation is likely to have been destroyed or lost under jerusalem. Also Pontius Pilate is only mentioned as much as jesus in the historical and bibical text, yet we know he existed, which in my eyes is evidence to prove the point I have just made.

    Each gospel tells us a different perspective and aspect of jesus' life, his birth, his ministry, his trial, his crucifixition, writers of the time, when they did consider anything important to write it would essentially use the major events that had the most meaning in there eyes. This would explain the difference in detail and size of the gospels. If they were identicial then you'd instead accuse them of plagerism.

    When you refer to the census, there was one and the roman way of recording it was that all roman citizens were to return to there family home, after briefly looking it up it turns out the emperor augustus did do regular censuses at intervals in the empire. I am not an expert on this subject so as stated above i will most likely do more research into it.

    But i cant disagree with you in regards to the birth of jesus specifically, at the same time i suspect the biological information that gives us a rough estimate of when he was born would be the only part we can use. You can be sured ill be asking a lot of questions to my friend as well who is studying this topic.
    Well, you're already on your way to being a proper apologist. You've invented a bunch of excuses you have arbitrarily decided are fact, and you've completely ignored every point raised against your preconceptions. There's really nothing left to say to you. It's just a shame you've decided to shut off your rational mind in favor of this fantasy.
    MrMojo1 and stonecutter like this.
     

  60. #160  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    I trust what facts there are in the New Testament are just those it seeks to obscure. For illustration if a child runs up to you and declares, "The dog ate my homework" then you may not believe in the dog, or the eating, but it's a safe bet that homework was assigned. So if a crazy lady wants everyone to know that she was impregnated by extraterrestrials, then she's probably not a virgin. So much of the bible is childishly transparent. Like Moses smashing the commandments he had promised would be scribed by the finger of God, before anyone can scrutinize them closely, then publicly redoing the work in his own clumbsy hand. This stuff is just too incriminating for pure fiction.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Not only is there no evidence Jesus existed, anymore than there might be any evidence that Johachim the baker in Nazareth (which I just made up) existed, but unlike Joachim the baker which at least has a snowballs chance in hell of having existed by pure luck, logic leads to the conclusion that Jesus most probably did not exist, or that if he did most of the tales attributed to him are bullshit fairy tales.

    Why?

    Because it is reasonable to imagine that Joachim the baker from Nazareth had not left any traces for all the time he lived, but if the Character named Jesus existed, preached, performed miracles, walked on water, healed the blind, are you kidding me, news of that would have spread like wild fire across the roman empire, Senator Patricus Desperatus whose son was stricken with illness would have whipped the galley slaves to get to Palestine pronto, while Play-write Maximus Theatricus would have made fun of Patricus for believing in the Guru from Palestine, theres nothing of the sort, nothing, it is possible there would not be any mention, many things are possible, but NOT plausible there would be no mention of Jesus in ANY independent sources at THAT time.

    If someone in 2029 mentions the name "Harry" in a letter, thats not proof that Harry Potter is a real person nor that hes making magic with his magic wand, even if there are many "books" that say Harry Potter performs magic and fly's on a broomstick. Maybe their lives a man in England, whose name happens to be Harry Potter, because his dad mr. Potter liked the name Harry. But the books do not talk about the man named Harry Potter but the Character who is saying this and that and flying on a broomstick.

    What is confusing is that some people's ancestors were thought "biblical history", as if it was actual history, not only is it fairy tales being thought as historical facts, but Europeans even thought it was "their" history with a blue eyed blond Jesus as if most of the Europeans had not come from pre-christian tribes but had joyfully traveled from Palestine to Europe, as if middle eastern characters were their own history when in fact they(for the most part) had came from various tribes and had their cultural myths replaced/substituted/overwritten by other from an other region.

    On top of that, the Christian fairy tale was soaked up in the culture, and any doubt (during some periods of the past) was punished, people were burned at the stake because they only "believed" 98% of the fairy tale and disagreed on a detail. Thats like having everyone being thought that Snow White was a historical fact, and if someone so much as states that there were 8 dwarfs instead of 7 hes put on the electric chair. You can go back as a scholar to early scriptures of the Snow White tale to see if it can be interpreted that there was or wasnt the controversial 8th dwarf, and debate other scholars, but either way you are ears deep in a steaming pile of bull*$%^, because its not a question of which detail is true when NONE of it is. The Catholic church, which took hundreds of years years to acknowledge the solar system (or something like that), decided that there was no Limbo afterall.


    Finally, no one that is not Mormon would ever believe in a hundred years that any of the fantastical magical tales of the religion is true. And they would not interpret a given magical detail that doesnt make sense as being something else within the magical tale's frame of reference, because you do not acknowledge the premise that the entire story is valid, you dont need to justify a bogus detail with an alternate interpretation within the tale (while working from the premise other details are true), you have the capacity to call a spade a spade.

    Christianity(and Islam) is just as fantastically magical as the Mormon's story. The reason "some" Christians have a hard time not seeing this magical fantasy as such, is because they have been raised in that environment, they are working from the premise that it is true, but you are not starting off with the premise that the Mormon fairy tale is true, you are not locked in the Mormon mental box, you are able to compare Mormon magical claims like any other magical claim without starting off with the premise it is true. As a child you learn was is "true" by observation (which includes what your parent say is real) and integrate this into your mental frame of reference or template, being raised as a Christian makes it more difficult to perceive it as inaccurate. Its similar to the way we associate an object being visually bigger when its closer, if we see a bigger object (than would be expected) we assume its closer because that is what we have been exposed to, it is the premise, you start off thinking something regardless of the actual current stimuli, thats why we perceive optical illusions when the stimulus is different than what we have experienced. So Mormons perception is shaped with the mental premise its true, you can call that culture bias or a bubble of delusion.
    Last edited by icewendigo; June 27th, 2013 at 10:04 AM.
    astromark and Busy Bee like this.
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    I have done some more research on the subject and I have basically come to this conclusion. I'll start with the documented evidence, the biblical accounts, although they were written by Christians, is still the most amassed, reproduced and earliest dated accounts of ANY figure in antiquity we have. You'd have to be either completely ignorant or blind to ignore this fact. People of this time period, especially Jewish scholars, did not write anything down unless they had reason to mention it. Then there is the non-biblical evidence, the Jewish Talmud, who if anything would want to, if he didn't exist, either not mention him at all thereby suggesting to all who read it that he wasn't real or at least state that 'this man Jesus isn't real don't listen to these people' but they don't do either, they basically say, I can't remember word for word, that he's a sorcerer and essentially try to discredit him rather than deny his existence. I'll explain the lack of roman records in the next section however in short he is still mentioned by the same people that mention Pontius Pilate, whom we have archaeological evidence that remove any doubt of his existence and position at the time of Jesus' trial/death. Jesus, although did perform miracles and had a large following, would still have most likely been considered a nuisance at worst to the Romans, and as a result if anything he'd probably only attract the attention of the governor of the region. This means he probably was recorded by the Romans, I have mentioned this before but I have found it is valid, due to Jerusalem being the capital of the region, records would have been stored in the city, more specifically the temple. Jesus was considered a local leader so his records logically would have been stored in the local capital an therefore in the temple. In about 70 AD, the city was besieged and the temple burnt to the ground. Ultimately we have very few original sources for a lot of historical figures and events. Overall the evidence for Jesus' existence is, from my understanding very likely.
    What is confusing is that some people's ancestors were thought "biblical history", as if it was actual history, not only is it fairy tales being thought as historical facts, but Europeans even thought it was "their" history with a blue eyed blond Jesus as if most of the Europeans had not come from pre-christian tribes but had joyfully traveled from Palestine to Europe, as if middle eastern characters were their own history when in fact they(for the most part) had came from various tribes and had their cultural myths replaced/substituted/overwritten by other from an other region.
    I agree with you in regards to the Europeans believing there ancestry was linked with the region.
    On top of that, the Christian fairy tale was soaked up in the culture, and any doubt (during some periods of the past) was punished, people were burned at the stake because they only "believed" 98% of the fairy tale and disagreed on a detail. Thats like having everyone being thought that Snow White was a historical fact, and if someone so much as states that there were 8 dwarfs instead of 7 hes put on the electric chair. You can go back as a scholar to early scriptures of the Snow White tale to see if it can be interpreted that there was or wasnt the controversial 8th dwarf, and debate other scholars, but either way you are ears deep in a steaming pile of bull*$%^, because its not a question of which detail is true when NONE of it is. The Catholic church, which took hundreds of years years to acknowledge the solar system (or something like that), decided that there was no Limbo afterall.
    Actually this is popular myth, the church has assisted in scientific development as far as I'm aware for the majority of its existence, except for about 150 years in total.
    Finally, no one that is not Mormon would ever believe in a hundred years that any of the fantastical magical tales of the religion is true. And they would not interpret a given magical detail that doesnt make sense as being something else within the magical tale's frame of reference, because you do not acknowledge the premise that the entire story is valid, you dont need to justify a bogus detail with an alternate interpretation within the tale (while working from the premise other details are true), you have the capacity to call a spade a spade.
    I disagree fundamentally with Mormonism, just to clear that up, but I wasn't raised in a Christian family, neither were the majority of my friends but I became Christian, also you keep referring to the bible and religion as a whole as fairy tales and fantasy, I think your wrong entirely, I think they all touch on the same thing but from a different angle or distortion of that angle, the analogy of a mirror cracked is probably a good description
     

  63. #163  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    In about 70 AD, the city was besieged and the temple burnt to the ground. Ultimately we have very few original sources for a lot of historical figures and events. Overall the evidence for Jesus' existence is, from my understanding very likely.
    I see.
    Because there's an actual lack of evidence you consider that the evidence is likely.

    Actually this is popular myth, the church has assisted in scientific development as far as I'm aware for the majority of its existence, except for about 150 years in total.
    Evidence please.

    also you keep referring to the bible and religion as a whole as fairy tales and fantasy, I think your wrong entirely, I think they all touch on the same thing but from a different angle or distortion of that angle, the analogy of a mirror cracked is probably a good description
    And that "same thing" would be... what?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    In about 70 AD, the city was besieged and the temple burnt to the ground. Ultimately we have very few original sources for a lot of historical figures and events. Overall the evidence for Jesus' existence is, from my understanding very likely.
    I see.
    Because there's an actual lack of evidence you consider that the evidence is likely.
    No, my point simply is that to say that no records existed without taking into account this event does not mean there were no records, its like me trying to find my ancestral records in my families hometown, but the town hall was destroyed in the blitz so they are lost, if no such event occurred in regards to Jesus, I wouldn't even bother mentioning it, my final sentence of the quote was in regards to the whole response.
    Actually this is popular myth, the church has assisted in scientific development as far as I'm aware for the majority of its existence, except for about 150 years in total. Evidence please.
    The fact most universities in the UK are based on monasteries such as Christchurch university, the reason the church did stop such development, to its shame, was because the men at the time were scared of unknown territory, the example everyone uses is Galileo but even he wasn't punished for his work, it was the fact he insulted the pope while sharing his work.
    also you keep referring to the bible and religion as a whole as fairy tales and fantasy, I think your wrong entirely, I think they all touch on the same thing but from a different angle or distortion of that angle, the analogy of a mirror cracked is probably a good description And that "same thing" would be... what?
    the same thing would be central truth, my personal view is God through Jesus, I could be wrong. Taking a wider view of history shows there are similarities between a lot of world religions, you could take that as a view that that's how humans dealt with the big questions because they didn't know or you could take it, as I do, that they have all, individually, come to the same 'truth' but have expressed or shown it in different ways, like a mirror that has cracked showing.
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    So if I understand, Jesus may have been in the records of the temple that was burned. That's possible.

    As for fairy tales, to me that is what it is.

    Note that Lafontaine's fables and other tales with animals and fantasy creatures, though they are most certainly not true most certainly fabricated fiction,
    nonetheless contain life lessons, valid observations about society, morals, good/bad, and so on, that have a lot of value and may indeed be true(message not the form) and helpful.
    There is no problem with reading a fairy tale and taking lessons from it.

    However, if you have a story with a fox and hens, with a message, you cant use authority as an argument (argumentum ad auctoritatem)
    You cant say the fox and the hens said this so do it, or wear a funny hat and point to the Mother Goose book and say we must kill the infidels,
    or I by virtue of my robes am the authority in the book of ants and goblins,
    Think of all the bad things people have made in the name of religion, burning people, wars, you realize that women have actually been burned alive because they were acused of witchraft and doing business with demons and devils and goblins (not sure if you believe in these, but lets say they dont, for arguments' sake)
    It makes a huge difference if people believe that the story is true or that someone is the authority on the matter, like he has moral authority by virtue of the rabbit with a hat.
    If people think someone has moral authority by virtue of the white rabbit with a red hat, you are opening the batshit open bar for potential abuse manipulation horrors (war, inquisition, obscurantism, etc, etc)

    On the other hand, a fairy tale acknowledge to be such, can have a number of helpful benefits, without most of the negative effects. At least I think. So the difference between presenting fairy tales or religious claim X as food for thought, and saying its true, is from my perspective, great/dramatic/signifiant.

    A proposition made from a rabbit and goblin book not held to be the holy truth, will have to stand on its on merit in the given situation, it will be evaluated and questioned as being good or bad and not imposed as a given/automatically true regardless of the circumstances/etc.

    cheers
    astromark likes this.
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    Ignorance is a very dangerous friend. Just as a little knowledge can be misleading.

    Platitudes and Mythology are a large part of historic record.

    Weeding out the chaff is difficult at best., and impossible at worst.

    The argument is real and old. That it is faith based is pivotal to any understanding.

    That indoctrinated preconceptions are real and difficult to put aside, but must be.

    They must be if we are ever to move away from the faith based belief structures.

    To put aside all that is held as faith and accept only what can be proven is beyond most.

    : But not all; All hail 'Joachim the Baker from Nazareth' We could argue him as real.

    Thank you a great prophet the eighth dwarf... now where do I find his writings ?...
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    As for fairy tales, to me that is what it is.

    Note that Lafontaine's fables and other tales with animals and fantasy creatures, though they are most certainly not true most certainly fabricated fiction,
    nonetheless contain life lessons, valid observations about society, morals, good/bad, and so on, that have a lot of value and may indeed be true(message not the form) and helpful.
    There is no problem with reading a fairy tale and taking lessons from it.
    Yeah that is true, I see your point but its not so much the fairy tales that you look at but the ideas/beliefs of Lafontaine that are portrayed in the fairy tales, and then we go into the realms of tracing the ideas back if you see what I mean
    Think of all the bad things people have made in the name of religion, burning people, wars, you realize that women have actually been burned alive because they were acused of witchraft and doing business with demons and devils and goblins (not sure if you believe in these, but lets say they dont, for arguments' sake)
    It makes a huge difference if people believe that the story is true or that someone is the authority on the matter, like he has moral authority by virtue of the rabbit with a hat.
    If people think someone has moral authority by virtue of the white rabbit with a red hat, you are opening the batshit open bar for potential abuse manipulation horrors (war, inquisition, obscurantism, etc, etc)
    This is where Christianity went wrong majorly, eventually with any movement you will get structure with leadership, however it was not meant that a person should be able to say I am more holy than you so do as I say in the name of God, that was man's perversion of what Jesus taught for their own ends, I do realise the horrible things the inquisition did, just the clarify I'm not catholic, but equally you have to look at the good it's given as well, unfortunately the bad is often seen more prominently
     

  68. #168  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    As for fairy tales, to me that is what it is.
    It doesn't read as clear out-of-the-blue fairy tale though. It's a sordid mess of contradicting denials, excuses, smokescreen. More like transcripts of the Manson family trials. The NT (and much of the OT too) make most sense - and I'm genuinely sorry this must offend Christians - most sense if read as heavily edited accounts of doomsday cults. You want to throw out the bathwater, Icewendigo, and I'm saying there's a hideously malformed baby at the bottom of that, worth dissecting. My world has not been touched by Christianity so I have no reflex to reject it as pure nonsense. Nonsense is not the same as lies. There is always some truth behind a lie.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  69. #169  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    No, my point simply is that to say that no records existed without taking into account this event does not mean there were no records
    Um, the argument is that we have no records.

    The fact most universities in the UK are based on monasteries such as Christchurch university, the reason the church did stop such development, to its shame, was because the men at the time were scared of unknown territory,
    Right, because the location happens to the same as that of a religious institution automatically means that religion promoted science.

    the example everyone uses is Galileo but even he wasn't punished for his work, it was the fact he insulted the pope while sharing his work.
    Wrong.
    He was accused of heresy - because of his heliocentric view.

    the same thing would be central truth
    In order for something to be a trutj (at all, let alone a "central" one" it should be shown to be true.
    Superstition, unsupported claims, refuted claims etc. don't fall into the category of "truth".

    Taking a wider view of history shows there are similarities between a lot of world religions, you could take that as a view that that's how humans dealt with the big questions because they didn't know or you could take it, as I do, that they have all, individually, come to the same 'truth' but have expressed or shown it in different ways, like a mirror that has cracked showing.
    Or it could simply be that: we're all human and thus share a similar basic psychology - ergo any myths we come up with are bound to have similarities.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia
    No, my point simply is that to say that no records existed without taking into account this event does not mean there were no records, its like me trying to find my ancestral records in my families hometown, but the town hall was destroyed in the blitz so they are lost.
    So with that reasoning we could say a person named Fred Flintstone was there too, or even Ichabod Crane. See how stupid it sounds.
    There are no contemporaneous records.

    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia
    the same thing would be central truth, my personal view is God through Jesus, I could be wrong. Taking a wider view of history shows there are similarities between a lot of world religions, you could take that as a view that that's how humans dealt with the big questions because they didn't know or you could take it, as I do, that they have all, individually, come to the same 'truth' but have expressed or shown it in different ways, like a mirror that has cracked showing.
    Man’s Emergence came from one source, we were but a small tribe of arnthropoids, who believed that thunder and lightning, the sun and the moon, etc etc.. Were gods, as this tribe spread out across the globe and separated to form new tribes it took its myths and legends with it and added new one along the way. It in no way means that thunder and lightning are gods just that mythological belief too had a common ancestor.

    If man had emerged as we are today, then there would be no imaginary friends. But sadly they didn't.
    Education has brought man out of the mist.
    Last edited by pavlos; June 28th, 2013 at 07:02 AM.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
     

  71. #171  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    we were but a small tribe of arthropods
    LOL!

    Anthropoids?
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Hadn't noticed lol, have put it right thanks. I was just studying them on wiki must have been on my mind.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMichael View Post
    Heres the thing. I am currently not believing in history and science because i think they prove christ is real. So therefore i want history and science back even if that means me looking at an atheists opinion on my thoughts and seeing if they can cause me to be like themselves in a way. You act like the resident debunker could acutally not go toe to toe with me. I am not scared of them. I long for someone to convince me that there is no evidence for Christ as a divine being.
    Can someone explain to me why these have to be exclusive and can not be inclusive? I believe Jesus was the son of God and also believe that we find out how God works through scientific observation. One does not automatically delete or replace the other. On the contrary they are two sides of the same coin
    Strange likes this.
     

  74. #174  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreaCristiano View Post
    Can someone explain to me why these have to be exclusive and can not be inclusive?
    That's easy: science shows that there's no "need" for god.

    I believe Jesus was the son of God and also believe that we find out how God works through scientific observation. One does not automatically delete or replace the other.
    One shows that the other doesn't exist (as claimed at least).
    The other reduces "science" to nothing.

    On the contrary they are two sides of the same coin
    Bull.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreaCristiano View Post
    Can someone explain to me why these have to be exclusive and can not be inclusive?
    That's easy: science shows that there's no "need" for god.

    I believe Jesus was the son of God and also believe that we find out how God works through scientific observation. One does not automatically delete or replace the other.
    One shows that the other doesn't exist (as claimed at least).
    The other reduces "science" to nothing.

    On the contrary they are two sides of the same coin
    Bull.
    Really religion reduces science into nothing you mean like the scientist priests that the vatican has or the observatory? Or the medical research that the catholic and presbyterian hospitals do? yea look at them reducing science into nothing
     

  76. #176  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreaCristiano View Post
    Really religion reduces science into nothing you mean like the scientist priests that the vatican has or the observatory? Or the medical research that the catholic and presbyterian hospitals do? yea look at them reducing science into nothing
    Oops, wrong again.
    Religion reduces science to the whim of god.
    Since science has no evidence whatsoever for god then the investigation stops at that point.
    "Goddidit" turns out to be the "answer" and we can proceed no further.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreaCristiano View Post
    Really religion reduces science into nothing you mean like the scientist priests that the vatican has or the observatory? Or the medical research that the catholic and presbyterian hospitals do? yea look at them reducing science into nothing
    Oops, wrong again.
    Religion reduces science to the whim of god.
    Since science has no evidence whatsoever for god then the investigation stops at that point.
    "Goddidit" turns out to be the "answer" and we can proceed no further.
    So science has no evidence for God whatsoever so the investigation stops? So then why does the investigation not stop for what happens before the big bang? Science isnt the whim of God it is how we understand his movements and creation
     

  78. #178  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreaCristiano View Post
    So science has no evidence for God whatsoever so the investigation stops? So then why does the investigation not stop for what happens before the big bang? Science isnt the whim of God it is how we understand his movements and creation
    Oh my word.
    If there is no evidence for god can science proceed any further?
    Please, where is the search for what happened "before" the Big Bang?
    We haven't even got to the BB yet.
    And you misunderstand: the results from science will come down, eventually, to "goddidit" and "things are the way they way are because god decided that's how he wanted them". And, since god isn't amenable (or even apparent) to science, that's where it comes to a .
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; June 29th, 2013 at 05:40 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8
    we wil continue this another time need to return to work
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreaCristiano View Post
    we wil continue this another time need to return to work
    And you need to think too. Come back when you have thought about it. Else you are just wasting peoples time with your inane drivel.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
     

  81. #181  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    ~ One of the contributors said; " Education has brought man out of the mist."

    Only if it's effective and understood. I feel the need to add.

    That a willingness and or a compulsion to accept that which is unproven and faith based is still the issue.

    This is not a argument of science versus belief.

    Well, it should not be.. It should be a quest to find that which is true and is best proven as such.

    That statement should be pushing back the fog.

    Understanding a unwillingness to reject indoctrinated fears is always going to be a battle.
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Well, St Paul was friends with Jesus disciples Peter and James. James was Jesus half brother. If Jesus didn't exist I think James would have known.

    I myself find the teachings of Jesus very good and very ethical. Love instead of hate, mercy instead of punishment, forgiveness instead of judgement and above all tolerance, kindness and humility. If I knew nothing else about Jesus his teachings are enough for me to have faith in his promises.

    That being said I also feel that the message of Jesus has been used politically and not always for good since he first spoke.
     

  83. #183  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Well, St Paul was friends with Jesus disciples Peter and James. James was Jesus half brother. If Jesus didn't exist I think James would have known.

    I myself find the teachings of Jesus very good and very ethical. Love instead of hate, mercy instead of punishment, forgiveness instead of judgement and above all tolerance, kindness and humility. If I knew nothing else about Jesus his teachings are enough for me to have faith in his promises.

    That being said I also feel that the message of Jesus has been used politically and not always for good since he first spoke.
    Taking out of context, are you going to deny that the Bible is pretty much a How To guide on being an unegalitarian bigoted, anthropocentric animal-hater who also thinks lowly of women?
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    shlunka, are you commenting about the entire Bible or the message of Jesus ? There is a difference, imo.
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Well, St Paul was friends with Jesus disciples Peter and James. James was Jesus half brother. If Jesus didn't exist I think James would have known.

    I myself find the teachings of Jesus very good and very ethical. Love instead of hate, mercy instead of punishment, forgiveness instead of judgement and above all tolerance, kindness and humility. If I knew nothing else about Jesus his teachings are enough for me to have faith in his promises.

    That being said I also feel that the message of Jesus has been used politically and not always for good since he first spoke.
    ~ You talk of ethics as if there were none before this alleged Jesus chap.. That nice set of humanities finest guidelines

    might be just as well credited to "Buddha" or any number of prophets from antiquity.

    It would appear that the historic record of the bible has had a history of corruption and It is now

    almost a pointless gesture to even try to prove or quote from it..

    I do not require a bible or a bible teacher to inform me that adultery or violent bloodshed

    are the right way to influence people and win friends.. and we all know what is right and wrong..

    That we have choices in life and make the wrong ones a lot of the time.. Is human..

    Is it right to place a ambalance at the bottom of a cliff ?

    or to fence the cliff top ?

    or is it better to teach the consaquence of your actions are your responsability.

    Learn and learn how to learn...
     

  86. #186  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    shlunka, are you commenting about the entire Bible or the message of Jesus ? There is a difference, imo.
    Most Christians I speak with claim that they concentrate only on the New Testament. No objections from me. Now prove your conviction by disavowing and discarding the Old Testament as scripture of Divine Truth.
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Why is it that atheists feel they need to push their non belief on society more so than a believer ? I feel no need to do anything other than I wish, so kma. Jesus has a good message and I like it. I guess in the end we will all know the truth or we will just end.
     

  88. #188  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Why is it that atheists feel they need to push their non belief on society more so than a believer ? I feel no need to do anything other than I wish, so kma. Jesus has a good message and I like it. I guess in the end we will all know the truth or we will just end.
    With all respect, I have never had an atheist knock at my door and ask me if I am ready to discard the belief in God or the moral teachings of Jesus (in any form but as a deity).
    MrMojo1, Jeaunse23 and stonecutter like this.
     

  89. #189  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Well, St Paul was friends with Jesus disciples Peter and James. James was Jesus half brother. If Jesus didn't exist I think James would have known.
    That has as much evidentiary weight as says Mrs. Claus and Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer would have known that Santa was real. The same claims come from some unverified source.

    Now there is external evidence of a person known as James the Just being a bishop of Jerusalem of some cult. Yet, there are no documents from this person claiming he was Jesus's brother and grew up with him. The Epistle of James is claimed by RCC tradition as being written by James the Just, but since the earliest versions are written in fluent Greek many scholars doubt he is the author. The Epistle of James has no information at all about the birth, life, death, or resurrection of Jesus. This is an odd omission from the supposed blood relative of Jesus. There is the Apocryphon of James, secret gospel, but no scholar deems this as authentic.

    This James the Just has no major role in the gospels but is suppose to be the 1st Bishop of Christianity in the early 1st Century? It is odd. In Josephus's Antiquities (20.9) there a passage where there is an obvious christian interpolation (forgery) where Josephus chronicles James as the brother of Jesus bar Damneus who led a zealous faction of "law breakers" (Jewish laws of the Torah).

    In 2002 Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne University in Paris report that a ancient ossuary bearing the inscription "Ya aqov bar Yosef akhui Yeshua" James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" had been discovered in Israel. An ossuary is a stone which Jews used as a vessel for the bone of dead relatives. This was declared a modern forgery by the Israeli Antiquities Authority.

    Lastly, the use of the words "brother" or "sister" in the early christian sects, wasn't an actual reference to a blood-relative. Like it is used today, it means a peer in the sect.

    This isn't convincing evidence that person named Yaakov (James) the Just had any actual knowledge of or relation to Yeshua (Jesus) known as the Christ.
    Last edited by MrMojo1; July 6th, 2013 at 02:36 AM.
    astromark likes this.
     

  90. #190  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Why is it that atheists feel they need to push their non belief on society more so than a believer ?
    "More so"?
    Take a look at (Western) society - religion is so deeply embedded that it's almost taken as a given.
    That's what atheists get so vociferous about.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    Well, St Paul was friends with Jesus disciples Peter and James. James was Jesus half brother. If Jesus didn't exist I think James would have known.
    Paradoxical thinking (circular logic) what makes you sure that James or St Paul existed. I suggest you rethink that statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    I myself find the teachings of Jesus very good and very ethical. Love instead of hate, mercy instead of punishment, forgiveness instead of judgement and above all tolerance, kindness and humility. If I knew nothing else about Jesus his teachings are enough for me to have faith in his promises.
    I to like the writings of Confucius, though some of his teachings were lost in translation, when rewritten in the bible. Especially the golden rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    That being said I also feel that the message of Jesus Confucius has been used politically and not always for good since he first spoke It was first written.
    Fify.

    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    Why is it that atheists feel they need to push their non belief on society more so than a believer ? I feel no need to do anything other than I wish, so kma. Jesus has a good message and I like it. I guess in the end we will all know the truth or we will just end.
    I suggest you take a look at every town and every street corner, every country. Also nearly every war. And rethink that statement too.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
     

  92. #192  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Since an enormous majority of people on earth, past and present, believe in a god , creator or higher power for the most part by faith alone , and atheists believe in no gods by faith alone , it seems that it is faith that is the key to this disagreement. No group can actually prove to the other that any one group is correct in their faith.

    Atheist seem to think that religion is the reason for most war when in reality it is man using religion and politics as a guise to impose his will on others, usually for gain. A person that would commit acts against their faith is not truly a believer and follower of their faith and thus somewhat of an atheist exploiting that faith.

    In a multicultural civilized free society it will come down to basic tolerance of others faith. Those that feel the need to evangelize any faith, even atheism, should be free to do so without infringing on the other members of this society. That being said it is the minority atheists that have infringed upon the rights of the majority religious by not allowing the religious to openly practice their faith. One atheist can over rule a thousand Christians by filing a lawsuit about a simple prayer at a graduation. One atheist can file a lawsuit to change holiday names and force their faith on the majority.
     

  93. #193  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    and atheists believe in no gods by faith alone
    Wrong.
    Please stop pushing this ridiculous claim.

    No group can actually prove to the other that any one group is correct in their faith.
    Apart from the fact that atheists don't go on faith, then, as theists are ones making claims, THEY should come up with a better reason thatn "because I believe you should".

    Atheist seem to think that religion is the reason for most war when in reality it is man using religion and politics as a guise to impose his will on others, usually for gain.
    So you're arguing here that religion isn't man-made?

    In a multicultural civilized free society it will come down to basic tolerance of others faith. Those that feel the need to evangelize any faith, even atheism, should be free to do so without infringing on the other members of this society. That being said it is the minority atheists that have infringed upon the rights of the majority religious by not allowing the religious to openly practice their faith.
    Right.
    Tolerance for bigoted, homophobic, misogynist etc. etc. etc. beliefs.

    One atheist can over rule a thousand Christians by filing a lawsuit about a simple prayer at a graduation. One atheist can file a lawsuit to change holiday names and force their faith on the majority.
    Wrong.
    And, one more time, atheists don't operate on faith.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Maybe if you looked up the meaning of faith before going wackadoodle you would understand what I posted. Faith is the trust or confidence of someone or something.
     

  95. #195  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Maybe if you looked up the meaning of faith
    I have.

    Faith is the trust or confidence of someone or something.
    Correct.
    And you're misusing it with regard to atheists.

    Plus, of course, there's Faith (with reference to religion) and faith...
    Two different things.

    Where you're incorrect is in your claim that "atheists believe in no gods" - more accurately, correctly, atheists don't believe in any god.
    A lack of belief is not a belief.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Since an enormous majority of people on earth, past and present, believe in a god , creator or higher power for the most part by faith alone...
    This is purely an "Argumentum Ad Populum", a fallacious argument. The rest of your post has nothing to do with this thread as it relates to "Evidence for Christ" discussion.

    If you have evidence for or against, please present it. If not, then all you are posting does not add any value to this thread.

    If you want to discuss Metaphysics or Epistemology, I suggest you open a thread in the Philosophy section.
    stonecutter likes this.
     

  97. #197  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    MrMojo, my first post on this subject included that St Paul was St James's friend who was Jesus half brother and that James as the brother would have known that Jesus did exist. Since that humble post all the atheists have been troubled by an opinion that differs from theirs, including the use of words such as faith and Christian.

    The evidence of Jesus is historic, imo. I doubt you will find what your looking for with out faith in Christs message.
     

  98. #198  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Since that humble post all the atheists have been troubled by an opinion that differs from theirs, including the use of words such as faith and Christian.
    Incorrect.
    The "trouble" is because you made false claims.
    (ALL the atheists? Wow!)

    The evidence of Jesus is historic, imo.
    Yup, in your OPINION.
    pavlos, MrMojo1 and stonecutter like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  99. #199  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    Since an enormous majority of people on earth, past and present, believe in a god , creator or higher power for the most part by faith alone,
    Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Common Practice, and even an Appeal to Emotion. At one time the majority of this planet believed, the sun revolved around the earth, they were wrong. Just because a majority believe a thing, that does not make it true, every extraordinary claim requires evidence and religion fails at this more than any other thing. Your belief in magic is wholly unjustified.
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    and atheists believe in no gods by faith alone,
    Wrong, atheist simply lack belief in the claims of the theist, blind faith isn't involved. Atheism is good honest sceptism, just as you are sceptical of the tooth fairy, we are sceptical of your claims for a god.
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    it seems that it is faith that is the key to this disagreement. No group can actually prove to the other that any one group is correct in their faith.
    We don't need too prove a thing, it is infantile to try and prove a negative. The burden is wholly yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    Atheist seem to think that religion is the reason for most war when in reality it is man using religion and politics as a guise to impose his will on others, usually for gain.
    And you belief the bible isn't an incitement to violence, "really"!
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    A person that would commit acts against their faith is not truly a believer and follower of their faith and thus somewhat of an atheist exploiting that faith.
    So we are now looking for the true christian, are you he. lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    In a multicultural civilized free society it will come down to basic tolerance of others faith. Those that feel the need to evangelize any faith, even atheism, should be free to do so without infringing on the other members of this society.
    Then you should inform you brethren, and get them to stop. And ask why they did in the past too, to the detriment of other cultures.
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    That being said it is the minority atheists that have infringed upon the rights of the majority religious by not allowing the religious to openly practice their faith.
    All though untrue, that is a bad thing. Why!

    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    The evidence of Jesus is historic, imo.
    Note the bold. "in your opinion". Doesn't make it fact. does it. Evidence is against it, there may have been a person called Jesus 2000 years ago just like the may have been a man named Fred. but that does not mean the one depicted in the bible existed. There is probably such a man as Peter Parker in New York, does that mean Spiderman exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007
    I doubt you will find what your looking for with out faith in Christs message.
    Christ who!
    Last edited by pavlos; July 6th, 2013 at 04:50 PM. Reason: Missing word
    stonecutter likes this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
     

  100. #200  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,587
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    I doubt you will find what your looking for with out faith in Christs message.
    You're wrong again.
    I'm going to an airshow tomorrow and I was looking for my camera.
    I found it without faith OR reference to "Christ's message".
    pavlos and MrMojo1 like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evidence and no evidence of time travelers
    By kelleskurter in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2013, 04:17 AM
  2. The idea that the evidence for Christ is of the devil
    By PaulMichael in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 10th, 2013, 02:33 PM
  3. The Nonexistence of Christ
    By KomradRed in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: July 15th, 2009, 04:12 PM
  4. Objective evidence vs Anecdotal evidence
    By arkofnoah in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 10:39 AM
  5. Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 30th, 2007, 12:01 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •