Notices
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 303
Like Tree117Likes

Thread: Evidence for Christ

  1. #1 Evidence for Christ 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    57
    I believe there is evidence for Christ in history and in science. Someone tell me why this isnt true. THough i dont believe in Christ i would like to not believe there is evidence for him.

    I'll just pick a scripture.

    The evidence that God predicted the hydraulic cycle
    "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full, to the place the stream comes from there they return again.
    Verse 7 of Ecclesiastes

    All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. Ecclesiastes 1:7
    If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: Ecclesiastes 11:3a
    He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries. English: LightningPsalm 135:7


    "The Psalms verse is especially interesting because it shows the connection between lightning and rainfall. Even what is known as Dry Lightning has rain, it just never reaches the ground! I found out that there is something called a Rain Gush whenever lightning occurs. If there is even lightning very close to you, you might notice it starts to rain extra hard a few seconds later. This all has to do with the electricity in water and is something we still don’t completely understand, but the Creator does!"

    I am quoting something.


    Last edited by PaulMichael; February 10th, 2013 at 11:00 AM.
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMichael View Post
    I believe there is evidence for Christ in history and in science. Someone tell me why this isnt true. THough i dont believe in Christ i would like to not believe there is evidence for him.

    I'll just pick a scripture.

    The evidence that God predicted the hydraulic cycle
    "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full, to the place the stream comes from there they return again.
    Verse 7 of Ecclesiastes
    um..certain corrections to your question before the resident debunker gets ahold of you..

    There is evidence for a Jesus in history, that evidence only points to him being a real person.
    so just because there is evidence for Jesus as a person, does not mean it is evidence for divinity.
    (IOW he may just as well be a well documented personality, ppl would still argue its not proof of God)

    and dont make the mistake of associating scientific processes with God.
    That particular one is stretching the association pretty thin, simply because you are saying that he 'predicted' a process that already exists, this aint prediction, its observation.

    back to the first line:
    I believe there is evidence for Christ in history and in science. Someone tell me why this isnt true. THough i dont believe in Christ i would like to not believe there is evidence for him.
    you believe, but you do not want to believe?


    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    57
    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.
     

  5. #4  
    Nut Hunter.. NMSquirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Four Corners area
    Posts
    441
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMichael View Post
    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
    i am confused when you say you 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.
    Wait for it....in 3..2..

    I long for someone to convince me that there is no evidence for Christ as a divine being.
    hmm..although i can't speak to the 'convincing' part,
    I just said that..
    The term 'Free' in Free thinking, does not imply control....
    Intelligence is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    God is not inside the box.
    http://squirrels-nest.proboards.com/
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The OP is poor logic on questionable evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMichael View Post
    I believe there is evidence for Christ in history and in science. Someone tell me why this isnt true. THough i dont believe in Christ i would like to not believe there is evidence for him.

    I'll just pick a scripture.

    The evidence that God predicted the hydraulic cycle
    "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full, to the place the stream comes from there they return again.
    Verse 7 of Ecclesiastes

    All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. Ecclesiastes 1:7
    If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: Ecclesiastes 11:3a


    Those passages were written hundreds of years after the ancient Greeks had developed the ideas contained in them. Are you prepared to comb through parts of Meteorologica and than declare Aristotle as the son of god because he also got some things right? If so, you'd have many more and broader range of true tidbits ranging from meteorology, geography, geography, astronomy etc.

    He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries. English: LightningPsalm 135:7
    That psalm is not attributed to Jesus.

    All of them are pretty simple observations, it's not surprising in the least they would be attributed to people's god of the month. IRIS is my favorite, she's the hand maiden and messenger of Hera often in the form of rainbows. Of course you might also like rainbows from the ancient Hebrew god of the sky and weather that eventually came to be the Abrahamic god of the "people's of the book."
    Flick Montana and Hassnhadi like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Lynx nailed it.

    Aristotle wrote about evaporation, earthquakes, etc in Meteorologica hundreds of years before Christ.

    Basically, your topic is moot.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMichael View Post
    I am currently not believing in history and science because i think they prove christ is real.
    Neither of them do.
    I can't imagine why you think science would "prove" his reality.

    I long for someone to convince me that there is no evidence for Christ as a divine being.
    Why would you need convincing?
    How do you convince anyone that "there is no evidence"?
    In point of fact there's practically no evidence that Christ existed at all, let alone as a "divine being".
    (We have absolutely ZERO evidence of any "divine being").
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    As a Muslim, I believe in Jesus as a prophet of God, not his "son." Because I don't believe even if I were an atheist that God the father would let his almighty God the son die without acting upon it. In Islam, Jesus was replaced with someone who had similar look to him, and Jesus was raised to heaven, so Jesus in Islam wasn't really "crucified." (Refer to 4:157 and 4:158) So we do believe in at least the existence of Jesus..

    Speaking from my scientific side, we can't prove that Jesus worked miracles and same thing goes for Moses or/and Solomon and so on.. We can prove he exists but all proof of miracles is written on paper which is not really solid enough for an evidence but we're sure Jesus exists
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    Because I don't believe even if I were an atheist that God the father would let his almighty God the son die without acting upon it.
    If you were an atheist you wouldn't believe in god: ergo there'd be no question about "not acting". People who don't exist can't act.

    We can prove he exists
    We can't prove Jesus existed. The main source (other than the bible) dates to about 100 years AFTER his supposed death. There are no contemporary records.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  11. #10  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    The earliest historical reference to Jesus is by the Roman historian Josephus, about 96 AD.

    The earliest fragments of the bible are dated at 250 AD. Most of the bible is dated to 400 AD.

    No contemporary reference to Jesus has ever been found.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The earliest historical reference to Jesus is by the Roman historian Josephus, about 96 AD.
    Fixed it for you:
    The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems, Josephus was a Jew so it was extremely unlikely that he would use Christian terminology and certainly would not be calling anyone messiah.
    So the TF is very likely a forgery.

    An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
    Rameus On the Testimonium Flavianum

    Also there were a lot of people about at the time claiming to be the son of god, Apollonius of Tyana being one of those.
    MrMojo1 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."
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    As well as Jesus Barabbas.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    There has been a hypothesis put forth recently on this issue. Lena Einhorn's "time shift" hypothesis focus on parallels between the writings of Josephus and New Testament ( the 4 Gospels and Acts). It offers a partial "fit" for the question of evidence of a historical Jesus. When combined with the stories of Jesus ben Stada/Pandira of the Talmud, there is a striking resemblance to the Jesus of the New Testament. IMO the Jesus of Nazareth character was crafted from these and other minor prophetic examples.


    Jesus and the Egyptian Prophet by Lena Einhorn, PhD.

    Ben Stada
    Last edited by MrMojo1; February 21st, 2013 at 08:43 PM.
    Neverfly likes this.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    idk, but i thought it was obvious that joseph was a jew. and as far as i know, even jesus denied being the messiah. i think that "i am" will haunt him forever.
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Lena Einhorn's "time shit" hypothesis
    (chuckle)
    Meraxes likes this.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The earliest historical reference to Jesus is by the Roman historian Josephus, about 96 AD.
    Fixed it for you:
    The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems, Josephus was a Jew so it was extremely unlikely that he would use Christian terminology and certainly would not be calling anyone messiah.
    So the TF is very likely a forgery.

    An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
    Rameus On the Testimonium Flavianum

    Also there were a lot of people about at the time claiming to be the son of god, Apollonius of Tyana being one of those.
    I wouldn't go so far and claim the entire work a forgery, but I suspect there has been interpolations made by later century Christians.
    Josephus thought that Titus Flavius Vespasianus Caesar was the messiah.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Lena Einhorn's "time shit" hypothesis
    (chuckle)
    corrected, thanks
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    What is the evidence that Josephus is Jesus? What is the evidence (outside the bible) that this Jesus is the son of God?
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    What is the evidence that Josephus is Jesus? What is the evidence (outside the bible) that this Jesus is the son of God?
    Well, I don't know about the relation between Josephus and Jesus, but as being a Muslim I don't accept the idea of Jesus being the "Son of God" and nor do I accept the concept of Trinity for many reasons than just it's what my religion told me, let me explain a few:

    In the Bible?:

    Acts 7:55-56:"55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

    "Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” In this part of the verse, it says "Jesus standing at the right hand of God".. Isn't Jesus already a God in Trinity? Was he standing at the right hand of his? “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” Earlier part of the verse mentioned Jesus standing at the right hand of God, but then.. "Son of Man" standing at the right hand of God? So is Jesus a man and a God at the same time? It's impossible because God have abilities and characters that differs him from a man

    Difference between man and God:

    God is infinite, he doesn't die.. While man does. Those who believe in the Trinity claim that Jesus DIED and was revived, God(s) can't die, otherwise he would lose a character of being immortal, thus making him a human.

    Again with the Bible:

    Luke 18:19
    "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God." Here, Jesus admits he isn't good.. While we all know those who are God or at least claim to be a God or in a direct relation with God are good and more powerful than men.

    Matthew 24:36
    : "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." If Jesus is God, how come he doesn't know the most important part of Religion, Judgement Day? In Islam, God (Allah) says that it's he and he only who knows the day and the hour but no man or creature knows, not Mohammed, and certainly not Jesus.
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Let's try to keep this focused on history, not theology.
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,808
    All the evidence that's needed...The Holy Prepuce. Can there be any doubt? Must have been a whopper!
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    What is the evidence that Josephus is Jesus? What is the evidence (outside the bible) that this Jesus is the son of God?
    There is no evidence anywhere.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,808
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    There is no evidence anywhere.
    None for God, Satan, angels, demons, souls and yet some expect to find evidence for a son of God. Amazing!

    Just looking at my little list and if you start with God, then it appears as if it should get regressively easier to find something. However it all eventually ends up with man at the end of the list and as we all know there is plenty of evidence for that.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    I've read a good number of books on ancient near eastern and roman history and all of them (that I can recall) at least assumed that Jesus was a real man. Indeed, I didn't even think his existence was even a question.

    Perhaps the most likely answer is that there really was a Jesus who the historical records are based on - he just wasn't divine and most of the stories are legend.
     

  26. #25  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by markashley View Post
    Indeed, I didn't even think his existence was even a question.
    It has been for quite some time.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    When I ask for the evidence that a certain Jesus is the son of God, I think that there may be some indication. For example, there may be a historical record showing that a man named Jesus preached Jewish people about God. Or a certain Jesus was crucified. Or else, just having a person named Jesus in this world does not mean anything.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    When I ask for the evidence that a certain Jesus is the son of God, I think that there may be some indication. For example, there may be a historical record showing that a man named Jesus preached Jewish people about God. Or a certain Jesus was crucified. Or else, just having a person named Jesus in this world does not mean anything.
    I just want to note that:

    1) Was the Jesus whom the written documents are based on a real person?

    and

    2) Was Jesus the son of God?

    are two different questions. I am interested in the first because I enjoy learning about history. I'm not so much interested in the second for the same reason I'm not particularly interested in the question of whether Zeus was divine.
     

  29. #28  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    881
    The only evidence for Christ is found in the New Testament, which from beginning to end is basically a forgery. It is very unlikely that any of the gospel writers had ever met him. Their 'evidence' which is mostly conflicting came from hearsay, or hearsay upon hearsay. There is no historical evidence whatsoever for any event in the NT. The Jews knew nothing of Jesus. The historians of the day also knew nothing of him. These included Philo of Alexandria who lived from 20 BC to 50 AD (a true contemporary of this supposed messiah). Philo wrote at length on religious matters and with great skill, but he knew nothing of Jesus or Paul or any other disciple. There is a very brief reference to Jesus in Josephus but without much doubt this was interpolated much later. Jesus wrote nothing down. He may have been an illiterate carpenter who became some sort of folk hero by preaching a message, but as has been pointed out he would probably not have lasted long in the Roman occupied territory. His claim to have been the son of god was not unusual because all the jews claimed to be the sons and daughters of god. The whole story of Jesus in the gospels is nothing more than a confusing mish-mash of fables and legends which some writers could call on when living under Roman oppression. And they didn't call on these fables and legends from within their own tradition either. They called on a stellar mix of characters from the ancient world.

    For Jesus, like the much earlier Egyptian son of god Horus was:
    Virgin born on the 25th December.
    Taught in the temple when 12 years old.
    Was a teacher who had 12 disciples.
    Was baptised in a river.
    Gave a sermon on the mount.
    Healed the sick,
    Raised a man from the dead.

    For Jesus like the much earlier Hindu son of god Chrishna was:
    Second in the Trinity.
    In danger of death in infancy.
    Descended from a royal line.
    Meek and mild.
    Called the 'Lord'.
    Had been the object of prophesy.
    Had a life working miracles and preaching.
    Rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
    Descended into hell.
    Wrote nothing down, but left his doctrines to be preached by his disciples.

    For Jesus like the earlier Apollonius of Tyana was:
    An itinerant miracle worker and preacher.
    Credited with prophesies, exorcisms, cures and raising the dead.

    Many more characters of antiquity (to include Mithras, Tammuz, and Elisha) were blended and mixed to make up this mythical man.
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    God allowed his Son to die to go from an earthly being back to divinity to carry away our sins... it wasn't a slick switch a roo trick. God doesn't need such tom foolery... that is totally stuck in a human perspective of how maybe you could have done it. If yu believe Jesus was risen to heaven while an imposter took the fall????? That's not what Jesus said would happen... that is not what the centeries old prophecies proclaimed would happen... either He was what He said... or a total liar... Backed up by historical accounts of non-believers (those who didn't want to) and witnesses and wtitten testimony from many credible witnesses.... If your looking for hope that He never was... don't look I guess, because it's out there.
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    God doesn't need such tom foolery
    How would you know that?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    God allowed his Son to die to go from an earthly being back to divinity to carry away our sins... it wasn't a slick switch a roo trick. God doesn't need such tom foolery... that is totally stuck in a human perspective of how maybe you could have done it. If yu believe Jesus was risen to heaven while an imposter took the fall????? That's not what Jesus said would happen... that is not what the centeries old prophecies proclaimed would happen... either He was what He said... or a total liar... Backed up by historical accounts of non-believers (those who didn't want to) and witnesses and wtitten testimony from many credible witnesses.... If your looking for hope that He never was... don't look I guess, because it's out there.
    Here's a fact, GODs CANT DIE. Because they're GOD, the major character of becoming a God is not dying or existing since forever.. Since Jesus actually DIED, Where death occurs at a point of his life he loses such character, existing or not dying is a major characterist of being a God.. There are many others, such as all-knowing, most-powerful.. If any God loses such character, he doesn't become a God anymore.. For example, not becoming all-knowing, would mean he doesn't know something would give the chance for a being, an another being not an another God of being that thing thus making him more knowing than that God.. Hence, God is no longer a God.

    There are several qualities or characteristics you might say that shape what you can label to be a God or a human:

    1-Most-powerful: If a God is not capable of doing something or an action, it would mean that he has a limit, and certainly God is not limited by anything.
    2-All-knowing: Of course, God has to know about everything he created same goes for an inventor and his invention.

    those are mere 2, there are more, if one creature or being does NOT have this ability he is no longer a God because something has limited him.
    God allowed his Son to die
    You just proved yourself wrong, let me explain this, in Christian mythology, Jesus is a God and a Human which is impossible because I stated (above) some qualities that doesn't apply for both God and human.. When "God the Father" allowed Jesus "God" to die, he changed him from a God to a human so that he can die.. Gods can't die, because if Jesus is a God and his Father is a God, and Jesus can die even as a God then that means his father can die as well which pretty much is impossible.

    Even assuming that Jesus is a God and without his Father's involvement in his crucifixion it would still allow his Father to die, since Jesus is a God and he died, why not his Father, this gives capabilities of death to his father which is nonsense since Christians claim God the Father can't die.. This either puts, that God the Father is weak and can die which makes him lose his "God" label, or Jesus is just a human and he just normally died..

    Regarding my belief of Jesus being replaced by a look-a-like.. No one can prove that if it's right or wrong, because I don't think those who crucified him looked at his "ID" to check if he was real Jesus or asked him to turn water into a whine before he was crucified.
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Here's a fact, GODs CANT DIE. Because they're GOD, the major character of becoming a God is not dying or existing since forever.. Since Jesus actually DIED...
    None of this is actually a fact, since there is no verification. Again the OP is about evidence, there isn't anything that meets this.
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Here's a fact, GODs CANT DIE. Because they're GOD, the major character of becoming a God is not dying or existing since forever.. Since Jesus actually DIED...
    None of this is actually a fact, since there is no verification. Again the OP is about evidence, there isn't anything that meets this.
    Well I was speaking if God does exist and the concept of God as a word and it's meaning in Christianity, since Christianity is based on the belief of an existing God.. It's considered as a fact in Christianity.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Considering something as a fact, an assertion, is not the same as verify that something with evidence then concluding it is a fact.
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    I am currently not believing in history and science because i think they prove christ is real.

    I think they do too... so the problem isn't with the science or historical documents that (yes they really do) prove that he was here... Its about something else personal I can't help you with.... It would seem like saying .... I know its cloudy and water is coming from the sky but I don't want to believe in rain.



    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.
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    I am currently not believing in history and science because i think they prove christ is real.

    I think they do too... so the problem isn't with the science or historical documents that (yes they really do) prove that he was here
    Please cite the science or historical documents that prove a Jesus of Nazareth.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Your right... God can't die. the rest is BLAH BLAH BLAH.... Jesus was both God and man... The man part can die. And I know the whole crusifiction thing is debated rigourously but what about Him being bitched out by everybody for not rushing to his best friends aid that was sick and dying... and that He didn't make it until day's after he was dead... because He knew death was only a final concept for a mortal mind to understand. So, to Him it wasn't a big deal... He just went in and brought him back to life after being rotting and stinking dead for awhile..... No imposter on the cross crap.. mis identification... tricks by the confused as hell ("what do we do now?" scared to death, ) apostles. Stumped that He had "died" and the Romans were coming for them next..... To awe inspired... don't care what they say or do to us... this shit is for real... We just saw the dude...
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Science documents??? you mean like something written by a doctor in that time??? Would that count? Check out the author of the scientific documents then that compose most of the New Testament. Also the Historians of the time in Roman government talked of Him in letters concerning the weird things going on in the Province about that Jesus dude... paraphasing....
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    Could you please point out where the "scientific documents" that "compose most of the New testament" are?
    Could you give us an example?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Also the Historians of the time in Roman government talked of Him in letters concerning the weird things going on in the Province about that Jesus dude... paraphasing....
    Most historians of later time discuss the followers of Christianity. The works of Titus Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian from Galilee, has a couple references to a Jesus. These references are incoherent to Josephus's works, and have been concluded to be an interpolation (forgery) by later Christians by historians. If you exclude these references from Josephus's works, then there is no direct historical evidence.

    It appears that you can't provide any evidence.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    Your premise is incorrect so any conclusions from that point on... as well would be incorrect. It is God, the father/the son and the Holy Ghost all mixed together in a way our limited understanding of a Godly being can't comprehend... I know it's frustrating and sometimes I like to think I completely understand something too... but then I realize that I really don't and it's egocentric wishful thinking.
    Starting from the top.
    God can't die.
    Jesus was both, his man part could.
    His God part didn't
    He always was and always will be just as God.
    All knowing-ALL powerful. Creator life... like an inventor and his invention... It really probably wasn't wasn't that dificult to the Creator of the entire flippin Universe... that we as humans are still amazed and stumped by in pretty much every possible way since the advent of the scientific method of looking at things or even a little bit before that in the last 10,000 years or so we've had a big enough brain to question anything compared to a being that must have existed outside of our space/time continueum to have brought it all into existance from NOTHING to begin with about 14 BILLION years ago.... I'm pretty sure we don't have it all figured out and I will be the last one to be silly enough to think I have much of a clue.
    I don't label God, I don't have that right.
    I don't believe there are limits to His powers.... Wether He wants to create life..allow it to be taken or give it back.. It would be my limits of understanding it.. that would be noted before I tried stuffing it into a box and thinking I do... because (again) I don't pretend to know the power or limits of a being incredible enough to brought the Universe into such a harmony of 'chance' that I could even be having this conversation. He allowed the man part of Jesus to die... his mission on Earth was completed in Gods will.... "you can come home now" said God the father...
    Assuming.......... "Even assuming that Jesus is a God and without his Father's involvement in his crucifixion it would still allow his Father to die, since Jesus is a God and he died, why not his Father, this gives capabilities of death to his father which is nonsense since Christians claim God the Father can't die.. This either puts, that God the Father is weak and can die which makes him lose his "God" label, or Jesus is just a human and he just normally died.. ....." makes you assuming all those those things... Jesus is a part of God... which means He can do pretty much whatever He wants... assuming His father wasn't involved???? In His crucifixion??? It was the plan to begin with. It doesn't 'either put''''' anything. God is not weak... so the rest of that is also a circle of what you percieve could or couldn't be right or wrong.
    I also SERIOUSLY doubt the Roman government let him slip out half way thru His trial and incidentally strung up the wrong dude... That would be like capturing Osama Bin Laden and after he was given the electric chair in modern times... saying... are you sure that was the same dude as before. I'm just saying... I imagine they kept a pretty close eye on the man while He was pivotal in a power struggle upsetting and threatening the control of the Roman government and about to cause huge rioting in the streets in a power struggle with the Religious hierachy in the time and place of His trial.... Doubtful. And the Romans knew that if they had the wrong guy, the Jews would have been PISSED if He showed up later. He was shown to the crowds of those who hated Him just before He was beaten down... and not only that... Who in the world would have taken His place? His own disciples were scared to death in hiding because their friend "The God guy" was just killed .... and they thought they were doomed... how could they have been mistaken of their friend and leader of so many years? and if they had been behind the plot to switch Him out... they wouldn't have been so re-filled with hope and astonishment when He came to them and ....dispite the Roman threat to their lives if they kept up this game... They instead of caving and admitting "OK, ya got me", "He really wasn't ever dead", "please stop beating me, don't kill me". Had the strength of knowledge and truth to proclaim what they had witnessed till their last breath.
    I don't know about you... but if someone was torturing me to death... I would recant that the sky was blue if they would stop.....
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Your premise is incorrect
    Please elucidate.
    How is the premise incorrect?

    God can't die.
    In order for this to be correct god would have to exist.

    Jesus was both, his man part could.
    In order for this to be correct Jesus would have to have existed.

    His God part didn't
    See above.

    And blah blah blah... unsupported claims, supposition, assumption
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    It is God, the father/the son and the Holy Ghost all mixed together in a way our limited understanding of a Godly being can't comprehend...
    The "holy trinity" was devised about 400 years after the death of Christ.
    The claim that it's 'beyond our understanding' is simply a cop-out. It is used to prevent being required to support your claims.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    but then I realize that I really don't and it's egocentric wishful thinking.
    This appears to be accurate...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    God can't die.
    That is not the top. The top would be showing reasonable empirical evidence that there is such a being before you state it as an axiom upon which to base your further speculations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    I'm pretty sure we don't have it all figured out and I will be the last one to be silly enough to think I have much of a clue.
    But why the speculations based on a primitive faith?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    makes you assuming all those those things...
    Assuming, eh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Jesus is a part of God...
    You are assuming this. You base this assumption entirely on things you were told by other believers. You have no idea whether it is valid, but were taught to believe it and taught to accept it without examining it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    It was the plan to begin with.
    Assumption.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    He was shown to the crowds of those who hated Him
    Jesus Barabbas.
    Is that name familiar?

    Jesus Barabbas literally translated means, "Jesus, Son of God."
    Jesus Christ means, "Jesus, Son of Man."

    So here is Pontius Pilate, not exactly a great man... just an administrator whose primary concerns were self involved... and he has TWO messiahs brought before him.
    Fearing a blood bath from rioting, Pilate offered the crowd the chance to keep their Messiah.
    They had to simply say who was the true messiah of their people. They chose Barabbas, son of God as the true Messiah and Christ was taken away to trial.

    You don't need to be divine to be immortal. Merely a martyr.
     

  45. #44  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    The Christian Church has told us about Jesus for centuries with much of the evidence for his existence coming from the Church, many believe that a real actual man named Jesus once existed, a man that became a legend, but just how much of this legend is really based on fact and how much is myth is the really interesting question. Christian Orthodoxy has always affirmed, not that Jesus was divine in a way common to all people, but in a unique way. Jesus didn’t simply have some element of the divine implanted within him. Rather, he was the unique and perfect incarnation of the one true God, but many none religious people have a real problem with this whole notion of divinity and are quite unwilling to accept that he could have been anything more than a mortal man.

    We can today ask if the earliest Christians did really believe that Jesus was divine or was it merely latter addition, this is an important question because it tells us about their faith and helps to put the more commonly held modern idea of Jesus just being a man, an inspired man, but only a man, into perspective. Was Jesus a man one day and a God the next? Was his divinity decided at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD?, many have argued that indeed it was.

    So how is it that is it that Christianity came to build it's religion around this idea?

    According to one theory, many Christians throughout the ages have thought that Jesus was divine because they believed he had been raised from the dead. But there is a problem with this, Jesus was not the only one to rise from the dead while he was on earth, yet we have no indication that any of the other resurrected ones were considered to be divine. Mark 5:21-43 tells the story of Jesus raising the dead daughter of the leader of a synagogue. The people were amazed, but didn’t think the girl was divine. Similarly, in John 11:1-45, Jesus raised his friend Lazarus from the dead. Many of people observed this miracle but they didn’t deify Lazarus. Finally, Matthew mentions that many were raised from the dead when Jesus was killed (27:52-53), again they were never considered divine.

    So to really understand about Jesus and what we know about him today we have to look at those who have written about him and told us about him over the centuries, many of these people have been heavily influenced by the Catholic Church and as such they have not been impartial, which makes it harder to seperate fact from fiction. So we can also look at other sources that can predate the influence of Catholicism, such as perhaps writings of the Apostle Paul. Though scholars debate the details, all serious scholars agree that Paul’s letters were penned within a fifteen year period beginning in the late forties AD. This means that the earliest Pauline letters were written only 15-20 years after the death of Jesus. Thus the letters themselves are primary evidence of what early Christians believed about Jesus.
    Jeff likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    lol.... Luke was a doctor. That guy that wrote alot of the new testament.... The strange part is that i am debating with someone about religion that doesn't have knowledge of religion.
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    And doctors never lie? Are never mistaken? Aren't subject to confusion or delusion? Aren't fallible? Should always be taken at their word on every subject possible? Aren't, in fact, human?
    And we appear to be "debating" with someone who doesn't have a clue.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  48. #47  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Knowledge of religion? Explain.

    Simply because some of us do not believe in God does not invalidate our perspective on the existence of some historical and religious figures contained within a religious text. If you think the bible is infallible or in any way a true historical document, you're mistaken.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    So we can also look at other sources that can predate the influence of Catholicism, such as perhaps writings of the Apostle Paul. Though scholars debate the details, all serious scholars agree that Paul’s letters were penned within a fifteen year period beginning in the late forties AD. This means that the earliest Pauline letters were written only 15-20 years after the death of Jesus. Thus the letters themselves are primary evidence of what early Christians believed about Jesus.
    Actually, when these letters where presented by Marcion in his cannon, church leaders of that time rejected them and classified Marcion and these works as heretical.

    The letters attributed to Paul have been criticized by a variety of scholars as to their authenticity, within the letter themselves there are remarks relating to forgeries. There are some scholars which identify only 6 that have survived time as authentic, and other scholars (e.g. Hermann Detering) which doubt them all. Regardless, the "messiah" described by Paul does not match the gospel narratives. Paul doesn't mention the birth of Jesus of Nazareth (as described in the gospels), nor does identify who killed the man with the consistency of the gospels.

    Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, his moral teachings, his disciples, or even when he existed. To them Jesus was mostly personal revelation, who existed in the spiritual past.
    It makes you wonder who exactly Paul and others was talking about.

    So we return again to the position of no clear historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed.
    Last edited by MrMojo1; March 10th, 2013 at 08:21 PM.
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    To say something is beyond our comprehension is humility ,,, that i am NOT all knowing.. no one is or can be,,, thats common sense. Its egocentric "know it alls" who's brains are so full of some information and too closed minded to accept anything else that may not agree with them... that is egocentric. To quote someone else and act like i thought of it.... Everyone is ignorant, just the subject is differant. Mark Twain I believe. Your initial premise that you were drawing conclusions from was flawed... so your further assumptions were equally incorrect about God not being involved, letting it happen, that Christ couldn't have been God and died of the flesh while easily retaining His Godhood.... He really could have ,,,, And I know a whole bunch of dudes named Jesus but I don't worship them.... Jesus Barabbas was a well known murderer,, Noone was retarded as you assume to be merely confused by his name to choose who lives or dies. The people wanted Jesus Christ to die because they feared Him more for his power. Pontius pilate knew that if Jesus was not the one killed to appease the Jewish atthority, riots would cause him to lose his job as governor. How do I know all this,,, because it is historical. Someone wrote it down... and now we take it as fact. Just like I do with the testimony of men who would be tortured and be willing to die rather than lie to say that isn't what happened.
    The Trinity of God is explained throughout the Bible... The fancy name was added later.. I don't have to support my claims,,, I'm not the one who saw the stuff to write it down. I am saying thats what they said, and I believe them. as to the rest...as you put it.
    .......That is not the top. The top would be showing reasonable empirical evidence that there is such a being before you state it as an axiom upon which to base your further speculations..... WOW, those are really big sciency soundein words there boy... I'm impressed ya sound so smart an all.... I best back off and act all dumbfounded and shy away, huh? lmao. First off, I am no stranger to emperical evidence or the scientific method. I could wager a large sum of money on a bet that I've got ya beat in college courses and degrees and areas of study to back this up.... without knowing anything about you. I'm not trying to be condescending, It's just based on the probabilities of math and science. andyou go on....
    ....You are assuming this. You base this assumption entirely on things you were told by other believers. You have no idea whether it is valid, but were taught to believe it and taught to accept it without examining it.
    which is not correct. again you are incorrectly assuming things.... I am not basing this assumption entirely on things i was told by other believers. I am smart enough to read history. Proven over centuries..... and....
    But why the speculations based on a primitive faith?....... If that is what you call 1500 years of paper trails from independant witnesses.... it would be easier to denie the historical basis of most of science.
     

  51. #50  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    If that explosion of letters and symbols is all the more effort you're going to put into making an intelligent post, I'm out.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Luke was eluded to as a doctor in the Pauline epistle to the Colossians. It's more likely he was a barber. Barbers routinely set broken bones, treated wounds and acted as a 'physician.' This practice continued up til recent times. In fact, the famous "Figaro" was a barber.
     

  53. #52  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Its egocentric "know it alls" who's brains are so full of some information and too closed minded to accept anything else that may not agree with them... that is egocentric.
    No, the egocentricity appears when someone expects to be taken seriously, and have their views given consideration, when they present no evidence.

    Your initial premise that you were drawing conclusions from was flawed.
    Repeated unsubstantiated claim.

    I don't have to support my claims
    Then we don't have to take them seriously.

    The top would be showing reasonable empirical evidence that there is such a being before you state it as an axiom upon which to base your further speculations..... WOW, those are really big sciency soundein words there boy... I'm impressed ya sound so smart an all.... I best back off and act all dumbfounded and shy away, huh?
    No. What you SHOULD do is present evidence.

    First off, I am no stranger to emperical evidence or the scientific method.
    Then start behaving as if that's true, as opposed to simply presenting empty claims.

    I could wager a large sum of money on a bet that I've got ya beat in college courses and degrees and areas of study to back this up.... without knowing anything about you.
    Of course you would.
    Another unsubstantiated claim 1.

    It's just based on the probabilities of math and science. andyou go on....
    Yeah? How did assign those probabilities? Guess work?

    1 And yet, with all of those "college courses and degrees", you can't format a post, use paragraphs, spell or use a spell checker or even use the quote function. Ironic, isn't it?
    tk421, MrMojo1, RedPanda and 2 others like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    that i am NOT all knowing.. no one is or can be,,, thats common sense.
    Make up your mind... a moment ago you said Jesus was since he was God.
    But then, so was Osiris and Hiro Hito.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    Its egocentric "know it alls" who's brains are so full of some information and too closed minded to accept anything else that may not agree with them... that is egocentric.
    Or, it's religious.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    yak yak yak
    Any strong evidence of this deity you keep talking about?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    The Trinity of God is explained throughout the Bible... The fancy name was added later..
    Hardly. Can you quote the bible? Some interpret certain scriptures a certain way and eventually, doctrine was made up to work with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    I don't have to support my claims,,,
    Yes, you do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    WOW, those are really big sciency soundein words there boy...
    Yes, they are, son. Now, are you going to back up your claims, or not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    First off, I am no stranger to emperical evidence or the scientific method.
    You can't even spell it. No stranger, eh?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    I could wager a large sum of money on a bet that I've got ya beat in college courses and degrees and areas of study to back this up...
    Appeal to authority... didn't we just cover this? Do you have empirical evidence or do you just prefer to talk a lot?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    which is not correct. again you are incorrectly assuming things....
    Really?!
    Let me quote you, now:
    "I'm not the one who saw the stuff to write it down. I am saying thats what they said, and I believe them. as to the rest...as you put it." Foot, meet mouth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    I am not basing this assumption entirely on things i was told by other believers. I am smart enough to read history. Proven over centuries...
    If you are so familiar with science, you should understand that only mathematics has proofs. You claim your "history" is proven- provide that "proof."
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    If that is what you call 1500 years of paper trails from independant witnesses....
    Wrong.
    Approximately 15 years worth of biased interpretation and stories all of which conflict with each-other. How did you multiply that by a thousand? Oh yes, you already answered that. You said, "wishful thinking."
    I agree.
    Last edited by Neverfly; March 10th, 2013 at 08:25 PM.
    stonecutter likes this.
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    They are... they were probably all mistaken.... all thousands of them that witnessed those things... no matter what any of their jobs were. Not a lick of any of there stories were true. Not even the government files on the guy. They were all probably having fits of mass hysteria... and none of it should be counted as possible or historical.... Do you feel better?
     

  56. #55  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I'd like to see these documents of which you speak. It sounds pretty substantial, the way you talk about them.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  57. #56  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    Typical crank tactic.
    Avoid presenting evidence, avoid presenting any rational argument, avoid addressing the actual discussion point.
    When in doubt divert.

    Edit: NOT addressed to Flick's post but the one prior.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    The dead sea scrolls... heard of them? Written during the exact time frame, during the life of Christ...... found in 1947 that not only did Not contridict any of the writtings of our "Holy Bible" put together as the Canon. It reinforced them.... This is just an argument with someone that ReFuSes to see the FACTS and is trying to be thick headed. I'm done. Your right, your exsistance is meaningless, there is no right and wrong...just don't get caught, there is no judgement, no creation... oh wait, No matter what string theory, bubble universe you want to try to take it back to,,,, it would seem we exist and 'something had to have exsisted before that... so that we could eventually come into being.... but besides that. Your life is meaningless random eventuallity of a random process and nothing you do matters... live in peace.
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    13
    More like a crazy daffy duck calling himself a genius.
     

  60. #59  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Don't get all angry and dismissive because people don't just immediately buy into what you're saying. At least act like a adult.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  61. #60  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    If your looking for hope that He never was... don't look I guess, because it's out there.
    Why should I ever look for hope that He never was? What kind of tom foolery are you spouting?
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    They are... they were probably all mistaken.... all thousands of them that witnessed those things... no matter what any of their jobs were. Not a lick of any of there stories were true. Not even the government files on the guy. They were all probably having fits of mass hysteria... and none of it should be counted as possible or historical.... Do you feel better?
    So... Thousands of witnesses wrote down exacting accounts? Is that really what you're claiming?
     

  63. #62  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    The dead sea scrolls... heard of them?
    Yup.

    Written during the exact time frame, during the life of Christ
    Ah. I see my error. I hadn't realised that the "exact" time frame, the "life of Christ" was a spread of some 700 years.

    found in 1947 that not only did Not contridict any of the writtings of our "Holy Bible" put together as the Canon. It reinforced them.
    Generally Christians pay little regard to the Old Testament. Oh wait. You're not claiming they "reinforce" claims of Jesus?
    Why would they contradict the rest of Bible? They're part of the same mythology.

    This is just an argument with someone that ReFuSes to see the FACTS and is trying to be thick headed. I'm done. Your right, your exsistance is meaningless, there is no right and wrong...just don't get caught, there is no judgement, no creation... oh wait, No matter what string theory, bubble universe you want to try to take it back to,,,, it would seem we exist and 'something had to have exsisted before that... so that we could eventually come into being.... but besides that. Your life is meaningless random eventuallity of a random process and nothing you do matters... live in peace.
    Have you ever considered thinking? I know it's hard but it works for most of us.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    The dead sea scrolls... heard of them?
    What do the dead sea scrolls have in relation to existence of a Jesus of Nazareth? The scrolls mention a "Teacher of Righteousness", but there is no evidence that the Teacher, or any other person mentioned in the scrolls is meant to be Jesus.

    This would explain why the Vatican suppressed the publication of the Scrolls for many years.
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,808
    Finding evidence that Jesus once existed is simply not enough. Ultimately, proving he was the son of God would mean everything. In Post #21 I produced what one might say is historical proof that Christ's foreskin survived even late into the 20th century. Unfortunately it was stolen by thieves but it may still be around. It behooves all Christians to search for the Holy Prepuce, a way more important artifact than the grail itself. Find it and then hand it over to a team of DNA experts. Let them do a profile. Surely no other DNA in the world can come close to Christ's. We can make a movie about it later with Nazis, Arabs and archaeology professors.
    tk421 and Neverfly like this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    Because I don't believe even if I were an atheist that God the father would let his almighty God the son die without acting upon it.
    If you were an atheist you wouldn't believe in god: ergo there'd be no question about "not acting". People who don't exist can't act.

    We can prove he exists
    We can't prove Jesus existed. The main source (other than the bible) dates to about 100 years AFTER his supposed death. There are no contemporary records.
    "People who don't exist can't act." Well the existence of people is a personal opinion not fact.. We still can't prove whether God the Son or God the Father exist scientifically.
     

  67. #66  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
    The dead sea scrolls... heard of them?
    What do the dead sea scrolls have in relation to existence of a Jesus of Nazareth? The scrolls mention a "Teacher of Righteousness", but there is no evidence that the Teacher, or any other person mentioned in the scrolls is meant to be Jesus.

    This would explain why the Vatican suppressed the publication of the Scrolls for many years.
    Just to add that if the Dead Sea Scrolls had contained any evidence for Jesus, don't you think that the Church would be shouting it from the rooftops and the whole world would know about it by now?
    The 'Teacher of Righteousness' died in 88 BCE, so there could no confusion between him and Jesus. He was a magician who used semen and drugs.
    John Marco Allegro was I believe the only non religious person to be allowed access to the scrolls, and he wrote a brilliant book called The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth.

    Teacher of Righteousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    "People who don't exist can't act." Well the existence of people is a personal opinion not fact.. We still can't prove whether God the Son or God the Father exist scientifically.
    We cannot prove Unicorns scientifically, either; Science can only test that which actually exists.
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    "People who don't exist can't act." Well the existence of people is a personal opinion not fact.. We still can't prove whether God the Son or God the Father exist scientifically.
    We cannot prove Unicorns scientifically, either; Science can only test that which actually exists.
    Unicorns’ Existence Proven, Says North Korea | TIME.com

    Or, set hypothesis for what might exist.. we didn't know (scientifically) that the Higgs Field gave matter it's mass, we just thought everything had it's own mass as a physical property... Until we proved it exists
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    You made a funny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Or, set hypothesis for what might exist.. we didn't know (scientifically) that the Higgs Field gave matter it's mass, we just thought everything had it's own mass as a physical property... Until we proved it exists
    What is your point? That which exists can be examined and that which does not exist cannot be... because it doesn't exist.
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You made a funny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    Or, set hypothesis for what might exist.. we didn't know (scientifically) that the Higgs Field gave matter it's mass, we just thought everything had it's own mass as a physical property... Until we proved it exists
    What is your point? That which exists can be examined and that which does not exist cannot be... because it doesn't exist.
    I made a funny what? Lol..My point is that what we think or assume doesn't exist doesn't mean it actually doesn't exist
     

  72. #71  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Yes, that is the problem isn't it? In fact there is no evidence whatever of the existence of a God the Son or a God the Father and let us not forget a God the Mother.

    Nothing in physical reality would change if the concept of God was erased, though I will admit it probably would have a great psychological impact.

    Do we really need a god to teach us "morals"? How about adding a Scripture of "Secular Ethics"? A book on which common values all can agree.
     

  73. #72  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    My point is that what we think or assume doesn't exist doesn't mean it actually doesn't exist
    I prefer not to take the "All things exist unless proven otherwise" approach. Call me a skeptic.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Yes, that is the problem isn't it? In fact there is no evidence whatever of the existence of a God the Son or a God the Father and let us not forget a God the Mother.Nothing in physical reality would change if the concept of God was erased, though I will admit it probably would have a great psychological impact.Do we really need a god to teach us "morals"? How about adding a Scripture of "Secular Ethics"? A book on which common values all can agree.
    You're half correct, we can't prove God exists/doesn't exist so the main debate should be is Jesus a God or a Man? We can't make a Secular Ethics Scripture because we humans make mistakes so we really don't know what's good and what's bad and as I've said before, morality varies from group to group, time to time, what's generally accepted and what's not and so on. And even in a Haddith by Muhammad;" I was sent by Allah to complement the best of morality."That means morality exists without religion but religion corrects it. Or at least Islam lolAnd ec
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    My point is that what we think or assume doesn't exist doesn't mean it actually doesn't exist
    I prefer not to take the "All things exist unless proven otherwise" approach. Call me a skeptic.
    I'm skeptic myself because a major part of me is scientific and scientifically we can't prove the existence of God but as it comes to personal opinion I do believe God exists.
     

  76. #75  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassnhadi View Post
    You're half correct, we can't prove God exists/doesn't exist so the main debate should be is Jesus a God or a Man?
    Since the existence of god(s) is in serious doubt what would be the point in discussing if a man who may or may not have existed is one?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  77. #76  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    It seems an awful lot easier to look for evidence of a man named Jesus, than to look for evidence of the son of God. Because how can we even begin to look scientifically for such evidence when we don't understand or agree to what God is, so realistically we could all be staring at evidence of God, or it may not exist at all. The point being how would we know. We are told by the Church that God is all knowing and omnipresent, where does or could one even start to look for such evidence, the entire concept of this ever living God is totally alien to everything we understand about life. Scientifically we can't define it or explain it, yet billions of people believe in a concept of God, to them in their minds God exists and is real.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
     

  78. #77  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Yes, IMO, people seek order and purpose. God gives them that.
    Strangely, God will always be a human invention, because it is only through the self-declarations that they are the son of god, god incarnate, god descended, etc. etc.

    A kind of humble hubris, hubris nevertheless.
     

  79. #78  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    A small sample of gods that exist or have existed.

    Gods & Goddesses
     

  80. #79  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Yes scientifically we may not like the concept of God because it is difficult to understand, escapes a standardised definition (everyones idea of God seems at least slightly to differ) and cannot be explained, but God is something whether we like it or not and has power through the people who believe in God. God maybe nothing more than a product of the imaginations of the billions who believe, but none the less this is a verypowerful concept and the evidence for this is in the actions, words and deeds of those who believe.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
     

  81. #80  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    IMO, this is an expression of the mirror neural network in humans. It is an abstract idea which intuitively appeals to our mind. But as our mirror neural network function is shaped by our own experience, each god has a "personal touch", and becomes a "personal god" who has an interest in Me, if only I do the right thing. Hard to resist.
     

  82. #81  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Ascended,
    March 11th, 2013, 03:45 PM
    Yes scientifically we may not like the concept of God because it is difficult to understand, escapes a standardized definition (everyone's idea of God seems at least slightly to differ) and cannot be explained, but God is something whether we like it or not and has power through the people who believe in God. God maybe nothing more than a product of the imaginations of the billions who believe, but none the less this is a very powerful concept and the evidence for this is in the actions, words and deeds of those who believe.
    Unfortunately, the Abrahamic religions are exclusive and coercive. "Only through me" (else you will burn in hell) are impossible standards. Our ability to adapt to diverse environments, precludes a "traditional lifestyle". Human society is constantly on the move and changing.
    Dogma is unable to adapt to new discoveries and knowledge of the world. Dogma tries to cast and imprint an old, obsolete image on our mirror neural network and it is natural that more people are beginning to question the "old time religions" and beginning to develop a personal spirituality.

    And here is where the exclusive mature of dogma changes from being instructive to being destructive.

    If Jesus existed, he was apparently a good teacher of morality, but a poor spiritual diplomat. It cost him his life and made him a martyr.
    But why do we hear so little about Hypatia, apparently a great teacher, but a poor spiritual diplomat. It cost her life and made her a mere footnote in history... Hypatia
    Neverfly likes this.
     

  83. #82  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    I once toasted some bread, and the burnt image of Jesus Christ appeared on it. Weirdest part was, it didn't taste any different.
    Ascended likes this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
     

  84. #83  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I once toasted some bread, and the burnt image of Jesus Christ appeared on it. Weirdest part was, it didn't taste any different.
    Someone sold something similar on ebay once, but with the Virgin Mary, not jesus, and it sold for several thousand, people will buy anything. Anyway the funny thing was somone had taken a flippin bite out of it before selling it. So someone thinks I know, before selling this for thousands I'll just have a little bite, heck they must have really liked toast.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,808
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I once toasted some bread, and the burnt image of Jesus Christ appeared on it.
    You've got it set too high. Lighter toast lessens the image factor. The probability of me witnessing a religious miracle is not quite as great as someone who likes dark toast.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; March 11th, 2013 at 07:03 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  86. #85  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Fuzzy toast materializing into coherent images of the Soul of the Universe.

    I find fractals in almost very kind of toast.......hehe. Perhaps the Universal Soul is a fractal. We are living in a Fractal HOLOGRAM ! - YouTube
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,808
    I think finding evidence for Sons of Gods is something akin to toast preference. If you set your hopes too high, past the state of normalcy, then you are more likely to think you'll find some. Whereas light toast fanciers such as myself do not see the purpose of going to an uncomfortable extreme to prove that perspectives change when in fact it's still just bread.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Can we get back on topic please? This is supposed to be about evidence for Christ, not a general mocking religion thread. Remember "scientific study of religion"?
     

  89. #88  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I apologize, but what seems like mocking is actually truth, imho.

    Apparently these things are important to theists and "news worthy" historically and if one holds these kinds of "miracles" as examples of "true" miracles", is it any wonder why the reliability of those witnesses and accounts are being questioned?
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Can we get back on topic please? This is supposed to be about evidence for Christ, not a general mocking religion thread. Remember "scientific study of religion"?
    But I did give Christians the opportunity. I introduced the only scientific hope they have. Some may not take it seriously because of the nature of the potential evidence but if you are determined to prove Jesus scientifically then you must put personal feelings aside and go for it. I don't want to wax philosophic, I'd like to see the Christians toss scripture out as exhibit A and go after something tangible.

    Whoever is in possession of Christ's foreskin probably has some idea of its value so I don't think it was fed to the pigs. It's up to the believers of Christ to at least try and retrieve it because scientifically there isn't too much else to go on. The DNA contained in that little strip of wienie wrap is critical to their case. What I don't understand is that believers are more content to trust words written on old papyrus, in another language and subject to translation's misunderstandings than their own Christian authorities who dubbed the foreskin as genuine. At least this piece of Christ has a chance of being found. I'm not saying it belonged to Christ but for centuries people who interpret the Bible the same way today's believers do, touted the foreskin as Christ's.....so why is it in doubt, why ignore it?

    Imagine, it could contain DNA from God Himself!
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by markashley View Post
    I've read a good number of books on ancient near eastern and roman history and all of them (that I can recall) at least assumed that Jesus was a real man. Indeed, I didn't even think his existence was even a question.

    Perhaps the most likely answer is that there really was a Jesus who the historical records are based on - he just wasn't divine and most of the stories are legend.
    I don't believe Jesus of Nazareth was divine, or the son of God, but anything I have read about him led me to understand he was a real historical figure.
    As is stated, in the above post, "I didn't think his existence was even a question".
    Altho' I am an atheist I do get annoyed by some posts on religion. Some time ago there was an excellent post on a thread about religion. In this thread the writer argued that some members, of this forum, attacked religion in order to gain "brownie points" and impress others with their scientific credentials. I think there is some truth in that argument.
    Those individuals who, because of their religious beliefs, try to cast doubt on scientific theories should be strongly opposed, but I get bored if there are too many "militant atheist" posts that appear to attack others simply because they hold religious views.
    Last edited by Halliday; March 13th, 2013 at 06:44 AM.
     

  92. #91  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    As an atheist I wish that Jesus actually existed and actually was recorded saying the words that are attributed to him. I liked his messages of sobriety and self-discipline. The morals he taught were valuable especially in those initial days of spiritual growth and the preaching of dogmatic laws and the person's responsibility to follow the dogma to the letter.

    A great success story, a (humble) motivated carpenter becoming a moral leader of his community. All can respect that and did, ........then came that "son of God" thing and that spoiled the whole story for everybody else it seems.

    I am afraid to say that the more magic and majesty is attributed to Jesus, or Muhammad, or all prophets and oracles, the less credible the tale becomes.

    But when religious metaphor becomes the law of the land, things seem to deteriorate rapidly into two camps, the pious and the persecuted infidel. Not good, IMO.
    RedPanda and Jeaunse23 like this.
     

  93. #92  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The earliest historical reference to Jesus is by the Roman historian Josephus, about 96 AD.
    Fixed it for you:
    The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems, Josephus was a Jew so it was extremely unlikely that he would use Christian terminology and certainly would not be calling anyone messiah.
    So the TF is very likely a forgery.

    An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
    Rameus On the Testimonium Flavianum

    Also there were a lot of people about at the time claiming to be the son of god, Apollonius of Tyana being one of those.
    You're half-right. The Testamonium Flavianum is almost certainly a forgery, but there is an earlier mention of "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Antiquities which is not doubted to be legitimate. Whether it's accurate or not is a different story, but it is an extra-biblical account.
     

  94. #93  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    As an atheist I wish that Jesus actually existed and actually was recorded saying the words that are attributed to him. I liked his messages of sobriety and self-discipline. The morals he taught were valuable especially in those initial days of spiritual growth and the preaching of dogmatic laws and the person's responsibility to follow the dogma to the letter.
    I honestly don't see the value in his teachings. Sobriety and self-discipline are one thing, but what he wanted you to do with them was sinister. Abandoning your family? Giving no care for tomorrow? These concepts aren't conducive to a prosperous society, they're indicative of a man who believed the world was about to end. And I don't see the advent of monotheism as spiritual growth. I see it as spiritual retardation. The Polytheistic religions didn't usually care what gods you worshiped, and were inclusive by their nature. It isn't until the "one true God" concept arises in monotheism that we see such bloody accounts of religious violence in history.

    A great success story, a (humble) motivated carpenter becoming a moral leader of his community. All can respect that and did, ........then came that "son of God" thing and that spoiled the whole story for everybody else it seems.
    He wasn't humble in the slightest. He claimed to be the son of God, he required of others to worship him as such or else they could go get bent (see his refusal to help the Canaanite woman in Matthew) and he constantly made grand displays of his power. I swear, I have no idea where this picture of Jesus comes from with some of you guys. There's nothing in the historical record about him, and the bible claims him to be a miracle-working end-times rabbi. Where does Jesus, Meek and Mild come from?

    I am afraid to say that the more magic and majesty is attributed to Jesus, or Muhammad, or all prophets and oracles, the less credible the tale becomes.
    Well, at least you can deduce that much. Baby steps, as they say.
    MrMojo1 and stonecutter like this.
     

  95. #94  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    As an atheist I wish that Jesus actually existed and actually was recorded saying the words that are attributed to him. I liked his messages of sobriety and self-discipline. The morals he taught were valuable especially in those initial days of spiritual growth and the preaching of dogmatic laws and the person's responsibility to follow the dogma to the letter.
    I honestly don't see the value in his teachings. Sobriety and self-discipline are one thing, but what he wanted you to do with them was sinister. Abandoning your family? Giving no care for tomorrow? These concepts aren't conducive to a prosperous society, they're indicative of a man who believed the world was about to end. And I don't see the advent of monotheism as spiritual growth. I see it as spiritual retardation. The Polytheistic religions didn't usually care what gods you worshiped, and were inclusive by their nature. It isn't until the "one true God" concept arises in monotheism that we see such bloody accounts of religious violence in history.

    A great success story, a (humble) motivated carpenter becoming a moral leader of his community. All can respect that and did, ........then came that "son of God" thing and that spoiled the whole story for everybody else it seems.
    He wasn't humble in the slightest. He claimed to be the son of God, he required of others to worship him as such or else they could go get bent (see his refusal to help the Canaanite woman in Matthew) and he constantly made grand displays of his power. I swear, I have no idea where this picture of Jesus comes from with some of you guys. There's nothing in the historical record about him, and the bible claims him to be a miracle-working end-times rabbi. Where does Jesus, Meek and Mild come from?

    I am afraid to say that the more magic and majesty is attributed to Jesus, or Muhammad, or all prophets and oracles, the less credible the tale becomes.
    Well, at least you can deduce that much. Baby steps, as they say.
    As an atheist I agree with everything you say. I was trying to be generous of spirit. But I admit I am no expert on Jesus.
    But your point is well taken, where and when did Jesus become the gentle shepherd of the flock. Personally I do not see myself as a sheep, needing guidance. Seems I just need more knowledge......
     

  96. #95  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    No need to be generous in a frank discussion. We're trying to reach the bottom of things here, not protect feelings.

    We all need more knowledge. Pursuing it is noble.
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    36
    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
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    but no one dies for a lie they created
    Oh, I don't know. The guys that hijacked the planes on 9-11 did a pretty good job of it.
    Awareness of a lie is not required for belief of a lie. It's called self deception.
     

  99. #98  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    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.
    Phlogistician and pavlos like this.
     

  100. #99  
    The Dubstep Remix
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Britainnia007 View Post
    but no one dies for a lie they created
    Oh, I don't know. The guys that hijacked the planes on 9-11 did a pretty good job of it.
    Awareness of a lie is not required for belief of a lie. It's called self deception.
    Yeah, but the 9/11 hijackers didn't invent Islam. Britainnia007 is saying that the apostles would have had to invent Jesus and then die in the name of their ruse. Of course, it's totally possible that someone creates an ideology and then dies for it, so Brit's premise is flawed in that sense, but they are also making the assumption that the apostles really existed and really died as martyrs.
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Meraxes View Post
    Yeah, but the 9/11 hijackers didn't invent Islam. Britainnia007 is saying that the apostles would have had to invent Jesus and then die in the name of their ruse. Of course, it's totally possible that someone creates an ideology and then dies for it, so Brit's premise is flawed in that sense, but they are also making the assumption that the apostles really existed and really died as martyrs.
    True, I did not read that post very well. Correction noted.
     

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •