Notices
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 306
Like Tree141Likes

Thread: do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible?

  1. #1 do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    160
    do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Short Answer: No.

    Long Answer: This question doesn't appear appropriate for Scientific Study of Religion. Perhaps if you could rephrase the question in a manner which will evoke some scientific or scholastic evaluation.


    pavlos and Cogito Ergo Sum like this.
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    No, I do not accept the story of Jesus as described in the Bible.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    107
    The bible seems to be a collection of books pretaining to god. as I recall the bible of the king james version,jesus was a man,he was followed by writers ,who he instructed now to keep writing about him.He himself said he was only a man.The first few books of the bible the above and below the firmament and the adom and eve and the 7 day creation apear to have been written by moses.Moses was in egypt and after they had a revolution he and some of his oppressed friends escaped.Then moses was said to have parted the waters and led the people of the isreall family(they all were from the same family whose last name was isreall)to the promise land.Then he climbed a mountain saw a glimps of god and wrote the commandments (over 10) and somewhere in there he wrote the first books of the bible.So the bible is a collection of books.God is thought of as the entity which created the universe.Man (yes mear man)wrote the bible.As for the believability of the Jesus story.I don't think Jesus himself would have believed it the way it is written.You should believe what you believe.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    double post
    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
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by sokol-ballaci View Post
    do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible?
    Again I will say that in order to believe anything written, especially biblical text, then one must first believe the writer is telling the truth. Since man has a penchant for lying and he is also describe as a sinner in many holy books, then I would have to say that the Jesus story is not an absolutely true account.
    pavlos 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
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    I am not of the opinion that science is capable of quantifying or qualifying "belief" as it would pertain to the question asked. Thus, scientifically, it would make no difference whether I believed or not.

    Science has this uncanny knack of suggesting that the only thing which can be verified is that which lies within the box of science, thereby not allowing anyone within science to scientifically think outside the box.

    If you really wished to discuss "beliefs" pertaining to any religion, you would first have to get outside the box and this forum will not allow you to do so. You are trapped inside your own box and actually prevented from discussing the questions you have about religion(s). They neither reside nor are pent up in your box.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Science has this uncanny knack of suggesting that the only thing which can be verified is that which lies within the box of science
    Incorrect.
    Science says that the only the things that can be verified scientifically lie with the box of science.

    thereby not allowing anyone within science to scientifically think outside the box
    By definition if you're not "thinking inside the box of science" you're not doing science.

    If you really wished to discuss "beliefs" pertaining to any religion, you would first have to get outside the box and this forum will not allow you to do so.
    Since this is a science forum it's not the appropriate platform to discuss any other way than scientifically.
    You might as well complain that a forum dedicated to bicycles won't let you discuss film plots.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; October 7th, 2013 at 02:21 PM.
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Yes, I believe in the story of Jesus as it is written in the Bible.

    The reason I believe it is because of my own personal experience, not because of scientific literature.

    Your question is more of a theology question than a science question. You may wish to address it to a religious forum
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by sokol-ballaci View Post
    do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible?
    I believe most of the bible is so childishly transparent, that reading between the lines lays it bare. The story of Jesus begins with Mary claiming she's still a virgin because she was impregnated by an extraterrestrial. Such BS could only come from real persons.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Science has this uncanny knack of suggesting that the only thing which can be verified is that which lies within the box of science
    &nbsp; <br>
    Incorrect.
    Science says that the only the things that can be verfied <em>scientifically</em> lie with the box of science.
    However, it seems to be a general tenet of science that nothing exists outside of the box of science.&nbsp; Are you willing to accept that there may be something outside that box which is not subject to verification by science and that whatever it is could be supernatural, i.e. not material?
    By definition if you're not "thinking inside the box of science" you're not doing science.
    Eggzactly, if it is not inside the box of science, it does not exist.

    Since this is a science forum it's not the appropriate platform to discuss any other way than scientifically.
    You might as well complain that a forum dedicated to bicycles won't let you discuss film plots.
    No, it is more like you have a question about how does a bicycle work and will not allow me to use mechanics or physics to answer the question. The frustration here is that the forum has allowed a religious question to be posed, but will not allow a religious answer. One could ask if we can trust Gallic Wars to present a thorough and complete account of Julius Caesar. Probably not, but you could learn a lot about him and his character. Or if we covered only the final four years leading up to his assassination, we would not get a complete picture but we would get enough to understand him and his character and whether he was actually deserving of assassination.

    It is frustrating enough trying to figure out the mechanics of creating a post, so if there are format errors or inserted nonsense strings of letters and signs, it is because I am still working on the newer "improved" mechanics of the forum.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  13. #12  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Biblical Jesus is nothing but myth and hearsay. There was no such person as Jesus. At best he represents the sayings and doings of many people in antiquity. Some of these may have existed but many didn't.
    The first clue lies in the jews themselves. They were expecting a saviour from the time of Isaiah about 800 BCE. But the jews knew nothing of Jesus until the cult of Christianity was made known to them.
    We are told that Jesus was a man, after the idea that he was a god was dispelled by the mainstream church. But a man has a biological father and mother, and Jesus did not have a biological father.
    We are told that Jesus performed 'miracles'. Science has dispelled any notion of supernatural miracles. If something is perceived to be a miracle it has a perfectly natural explanation.
    We are told that Jesus survived the cross and walked again. But prior to crucifixion victims had their legs broken. Even if Jesus survived the cross he wouldn't have been able to walk anytime soon.

    Since the time of the Enlightenment and freethinking the literal interpretation of anything to do with Jesus has been diluted into allegory, and when that fails it has become purely a matter of faith. But personally I have no faith in a man who hated defenceless animals (pigs sent to drown in the river) and who came to split up families ('I have come to set father against son, mother against daughter...').

    Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
    35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';
    36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'
    Last edited by ox; October 7th, 2013 at 10:54 AM.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    OX said:

    Biblical Jesus is nothing but myth and hearsay. There was no such person as Jesus.
    This is, as near as I can determine a religious statement. It is certainly not a statement of established fact supported by any amount of actual evidence. It does qualify as an opinion. What does OX think about the existence of Mohammed?

    OX continues:

    At best he represents the sayings and doings of many people in antiquity. Some of these may have existed but many didn't.
    The first clue lies in the jews themselves. They were expecting a saviour from the time of Isaiah about 800 BCE. But the jews knew nothing of Jesus until the cult of Christianity was made known to them.
    I'm not sure what sort historical rewrite of the Bible we have here. It seems to say the Jews were looking for a Messiah some 800 years Before the Christian Era but were unaware of the presence of Jesus until sometime after they crucified him. He was crucified by the Jews for apparently claiming to be the Messiah. Since OX cites Isaiah, one must wonder if Ox thinks Isaiah was a real person.


    OX concludes:

    Since the time of the Enlightenment and freethinking the literal interpretation of anything to do with Jesus has been diluted into allegory, and when that fails it has become purely a matter of faith. But personally I have no faith in a man who hated defenceless animals (pigs sent to drown in the river) and who came to split up families ('I have come to set father against son, mother against daughter...').

    Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
    35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';
    36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'
    I am consistently amazed at the double standard employed by these kinds of forums where it is perfectly acceptable to make unsupportable, unscientific anti-religious statements but it is not permitted to do the same in support of a religious concept. OX can quote the Bible in order to disparage It, but Christians cannot quote the Bible to support a religious concept.

    Do you really think that is honest???
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Are you willing to accept that there may be something outside that box which is not subject to verification by science and that whatever it is could be supernatural, i.e. not material?
    Certainly there may be.
    (PS you're loading the argument by persisting in using the term "outside the box").

    Eggzactly, if it is not inside the box of science, it does not exist.
    Please learn to read. That's not what I said, nor what I meant.
    An artist thinks outside the box of science, I'm not (and very few other people are) claiming that his work doesn't exist.

    No, it is more like you have a question about how does a bicycle work and will not allow me to use mechanics or physics to answer the question. The frustration here is that the forum has allowed a religious question to be posed, but will not allow a religious answer.
    Ah, I doubt it.
    CAN you show us how "the bicycle works"? "Religiously"? Or are you just going to make unsupported (or, at best. self-referential) claims that don't stand up?

    (Oh, and the question, as it stands, isn't, per se, "religious", any more than "do you believe in fairies?")
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    This is, as near as I can determine a religious statement.
    Or it could be a historical statement. Or even one pointing out that, apart from the Bible itself, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of the Biblical Jesus.

    It is certainly not a statement of established fact supported by any amount of actual evidence.
    Given that there are no contemporary records of his existence...

    I am consistently amazed at the double standard employed by these kinds of forums where it is perfectly acceptable to make unsupportable, unscientific anti-religious statements but it is not permitted to do the same in support of a religious concept. OX can quote the Bible in order to disparage It, but Christians cannot quote the Bible to support a religious concept.
    Do you really think that is honest???
    Perhaps because, by quoting the supposed source, and taking what it says at "face value" it shows how the Bible contradicts its own supposed message.
    It's nothing to do quoting the Bible as an infallible source, which what theists tend to do.
    I.e. the quotation is for a completely different purpose than that used by supporters.
    Do you really think you're being rational?
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    dywyddry said:
    apart from the Bible itself, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of the Biblical Jesus.
    This is simply not true at all. There are numerous secular references to Jesus by mostly Roman historians or commentators all written in the First and Second Centuries. To name a few, there were Cornelius Tactitus, Lucian, Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Tertullian and Thallus. There were also many other extra-Biblical writings of a religious nature which purport to tell something of the man Jesus. It is difficult to believe that anyone of any degree of education could deny the existence of the historical person Jesus. It is equally ridiculous than any educated person could claim that, "apart from the Bible, there is no evidence. . ." I equate these beliefs (that the Jesus of the Bible was not a real person and that the only evidence of his existence is in the Bible) on a par with those who deny the Holocaust.

    In a separate post, dywyddry said:

    An artist thinks outside the box of science, I'm not (and very few other people are) claiming that his work doesn't exist.
    The physical painting does exist inside the natural materialistic box. But can we really "think outside the box?" One must step back a little to see what box we are talking about. For example, is the cosmos an open box or is it, as many naturalists suggest, a closed box? Is there anything that exists beyond the boundaries and natural material of the cosmos -- the physical world.

    If a closed cosmos happens to be your world view, the painting can exist only inside the box. If your meaning is that the topic of the painting could be outside the box, this would again depend on your world view. Evolution suggests that our very thoughts are merely the result of the culmination of chemical reactions to stimuli structured over the evolution process such that the artist's rendition is not really from his own thoughts, but from that which evolution compelled him to put on the canvass, just as I am compelled to write what I am saying here.

    Which, of course, has nothing at all to do with what I may believe about the religious implications of Jesus unless I happen to have a world view resulting from the school of an open cosmos.

    Religion cannot exist within the confines of a closed cosmos which is why those whose world view is based on "belief" in a closed cosmos cannot understand or deal with the "belief" in religious concepts.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    There are numerous secular references to Jesus by mostly Roman historians or commentators all written in the First and Second Centuries. To name a few, there were Cornelius Tactitus, Lucian, Seutonius, Pliny the Younger, Tertullian and Thallus. There were also many other extra-Biblical writings of a religious nature which purport to tell something of the man Jesus. It is difficult to believe that anyone of any degree of education could deny the existence of the historical person Jesus. It is equally ridiculous than any educated person could claim that, "apart from the Bible, there is no evidence. . ."
    None of which is contemporaneous: and therefore all based on hearsay.

    I equate these beliefs (that the Jesus of the Bible was not a real person and that the only evidence of his existence is in the Bible) on a par with those who deny the Holocaust.


    dywyddry
    What's the matter? Can't even copy a name?

    The physical painting does exist inside the natural materialistic box.
    That's called moving the goalposts.

    But can we really "think outside the box?"
    I've just given an example.

    If a closed cosmos happens to be your world view, the painting can exist only inside the box. If your meaning is that the topic of the painting could be outside the box, this would again depend on your world view.
    Please try to think rationally and coherently about what I wrote before replying. That way you'll commit fewer errors.

    Religion cannot exist within the confines of a closed cosmos
    Bullshit.
    As you yourself stated: Evolution suggests that our very thoughts are merely the result of the culmination of chemical reactions to stimuli structured over the evolution process.
    Ergo religion, in a "closed cosmos" (and you appear to applying that term in some sort of personal and random meaning), is a result of evolution and our brain structure/ psychology.
    The existence of religion says nothing whatsoever about the reality of the beliefs of that religion.

    which is why those whose world view is based on "belief" in a closed cosmos cannot understand or deal with the "belief" in religious concepts.
    Balls.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; October 7th, 2013 at 05:49 PM.
    MrMojo1 and stonecutter like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    So drbrasdyh's position is that he is right and, therefore, anything I post is irrational and in error. Do you also write speeches for King Obama??
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    So drbrasdyh's position is that he is right and, therefore, anything I post is irrational and in error.
    Incorrect again: my position is that you have failed to address my points.
    Introducing extraneous arguments and non-relevant points isn't going to refute what I said.

    Do you also write speeches for King Obama??
    Oh, well done.
    Yet another non-sequitur.
    Is that some sort of attempt at an insult?
    (Coupled with, apparently, an assumption about my nationality).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    On a more serious note:


    dywyddyr said:

    None of which is contemporaneous: and therefore all based on hearsay.
    I am not aware of any history which is written contemporaneously to the events. One cannot report on events until they have happened. Nor do you actually understand the meaning of hearsay. Hearsay does not mean such statements are per se erroneous. We rely on hearsay all the time. Almost all history is a compilation of reports prepared by someone other than the presenter.

    dywyddyr said:

    The physical painting does exist inside the natural materialistic box.
    That's called moving the goalposts.
    Don't know how to respond to this since your statement does not address what I was saying in the first place. I merely put the painting where it belongs after you attempted to say it was outside the box when it appears to me that your world view could not allow the artist outside the box. The painting is a physical thing which must exist within the cosmos. The idea behind the painting may, or may not be, outside the box depending on your definition of the box. And before you say I cannot know your world view, ask yourself if you think you know mine.

    dywyddyr said:

    Please try to think rationally and coherently about what I wrote before replying. That way you'll commit fewer errors.
    Perhaps it would be more helpful if you thought rationally and coherently before you made irrelevant statements rather than counter arguments which are not based on anything. You have not really ever offered any relevant argument based on any authority other than your own in which you merely say I am wrong. You need to have some authoritative counter information such as that the Roman historians were wrong, not that they relied on reports rather than eye-witness personal observations.

    dywyddyr said:


    . . .[M]y position is that you have failed to address my points. Introducing extraneous arguments and non-relevant points isn't going to refute what I said.
    My position is that you have refused to address my points with anything other than disagreement. You have introduced no controverting arguments or information or even points which would refute that I have said. The only potential argument which you have offered is that you disagree. Your painting was not an example of thinking outside the box -- it was certainly in the painter's box.

    Show me some historical authoritarian who proves that the Roman historians were erroneous. Tell me why you think the artist is thinking outside the box. It is not an example of thinking outside the box other than inside your mind. Tell me if you have a view concerning whether the cosmos is open or closed or if you think that is a reasonable explanation of world views. You seem to be content to nit-pick things like spelling and then go back and correct your own spelling error without noting that you have edited your post. (cop v. copy). Actually, I did not misspell your name; I miscopied your acronym which I will likely do again at some point. If you misspell my name, it is because you are misspelling my name.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    I am not aware of any history which is written contemporaneously to the events. One cannot report on events until they have happened. Nor do you actually understand the meaning of hearsay. Hearsay does not mean such statements are per se erroneous. We rely on hearsay all the time. Almost all history is a compilation of reports prepared by someone other than the presenter.
    Right. because history isn't based on records made at the time, is it?


    Don't know how to respond to this since your statement does not address what I was saying in the first place. I merely put the painting where it belongs after you attempted to say it was outside the box when it appears to me that your world view could not allow the artist outside the box. The painting is a physical thing which must exist within the cosmos.
    And you appear to be ignoring what I wrote: the painting itself, and the subject, is not subject to "proof" by physics. (beyong its gross existence).

    Perhaps it would be more helpful if you thought rationally and coherently before you made irrelevant statements rather than counter arguments which are not based on anything. You have not really ever offered any relevant argument based on any authority other than your own in which you merely say I am wrong. You need to have some authoritative counter information such as that the Roman historians were wrong, not that they relied on reports rather than eye-witness personal observations.
    I don't need "authority other than mine" to point out the flaws in your argument.

    My position is that you have refused to address my points with anything other than disagreement.
    And pointing out that your argument is based on flawed premises.

    You have introduced no controverting arguments or information or even points which would refute that I have said.
    So you didn't bother reading what was written?

    The only potential argument which you have offered is that you disagree. Your painting was not an example of thinking outside the box -- it was certainly in the painter's box.
    And the painter's box is not, as I wrote, in the physics box.
    Do try to keep up with your own claims.
    You: Eggzactly, if it is not inside the box of science, it does not exist.
    Me: An artist thinks outside the box of science, I'm not (and very few other people are) claiming that his work doesn't exist.

    Show me some historical authoritarian who proves that the Roman historians were erroneous.
    Oops: if YOU are claiming them as a source then it's up to you to show that they are correct.

    Tell me why you think the artist is thinking outside the box. It is not an example of thinking outside the box other than inside your mind.
    Do artists refer to, or even consider, physics when painting?
    Or do they think about subject, composition, representation, etc?

    Tell me if you have a view concerning whether the cosmos is open or closed or if you think that is a reasonable explanation of world views.
    The evidence is that it's closed: for what relevance it has to the argument.

    Actually, I did not misspell your name; I miscopied your acronym
    Since I don't have an acronym, but I do have a user name, you're wrong.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    God said:

    I don't need "authority other than mine" to point out the flaws in your argument.
    Not much sense in discussing anything with someone who already knows everything.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    160
    well im sorry , really sorry that a silly question can make all of you fighting on what you believe. let me say this.... now in the age of internet and fast information , the information is still a lie. imagine 2000 years ago. so for all of you who still believe it you better love to believe it. it would be more sincere. what I beleive is that Papa itself does not believe it . my belief thnx for your replys
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    160
     

  26. #25  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    However, it seems to be a general tenet of science that nothing exists outside of the box of science.&nbsp; Are you willing to accept that there may be something outside that box which is not subject to verification by science and that whatever it is could be supernatural, i.e. not material?
    To be blunt; no.

    I do accept that there are things which our current methods of observing and testing are insufficient to fully understand, but the notion that something exists outside the realm of reality is so far beyond implausible that I don't understand how we can consider it.

    There may very well be things which exist well outside of our ability to measure them, but the idea that such a thing is outside of science is nonsense. It is simply outside of humanities technology.

    As to the original question, I don't doubt the existence or life of Jesus. He may very well have been a real person. I see no reason why the story of his life would suggest him to be the son of a being which exists outside of time and space. That notion feels almost ludicrous when you consider what a backwards and barbaric people we really are. Why would a being capable of creating universes waste its time with us? When you burn a cake, you don't try to save it with more icing. You start over.
    "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  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    OX said:
    Biblical Jesus is nothing but myth and hearsay. There was no such person as Jesus.
    This is, as near as I can determine a religious statement. It is certainly not a statement of established fact supported by any amount of actual evidence. It does qualify as an opinion. What does OX think about the existence of Mohammed?
    I thought we were debating Jesus and not Mohammed. If anyone talks about Jesus, Mohammed or Abraham or whoever I am bound to say that the historical evidence for any of the characters found in monotheism is open to question. They all belong to the golden age of myth and fable.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    OX continues:
    At best he represents the sayings and doings of many people in antiquity. Some of these may have existed but many didn't.
    The first clue lies in the jews themselves. They were expecting a saviour from the time of Isaiah about 800 BCE. But the jews knew nothing of Jesus until the cult of Christianity was made known to them.
    I'm not sure what sort historical rewrite of the Bible we have here. It seems to say the Jews were looking for a Messiah some 800 years Before the Christian Era but were unaware of the presence of Jesus until sometime after they crucified him. He was crucified by the Jews for apparently claiming to be the Messiah. Since OX cites Isaiah, one must wonder if Ox thinks Isaiah was a real person.
    One of the things which first led me doubt to veracity of the Bible was when listening to a sermon in church, the priest referred to the prophet Isaiah and the length of time the jews had to wait for a saviour (their Emmanuel). I checked this out and found it to be 800 years. That was indeed a long time to wait. It's like going back from the present day to the time of the 5th Crusade. The bit about Jesus being King of the Jews was an interpolation, inserted into the gospels by authors unknown. If they had recognised Jesus as their Emmanuel we would have known about it from the jews themselves.
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The god of historical gaps argument isn't very convincing; that's for sure.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    160
    science at least its elastic. it changes when a new things are understand-ed by us. but the story of jesus its so rock jesus is a rockstar nothing more
     

  30. #29  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    God said:

    I don't need "authority other than mine" to point out the flaws in your argument.
    Not much sense in discussing anything with someone who already knows everything.
    Ah, another ad hom.
    Is that because you can't support your contentions?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by sokol-ballaci View Post
    do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible?
    I’ll stand corrected, but the letter ‘J’ (And it’s pronunciation) didn’t exist 2000 years ago. So there was nobody called Jesus back then.

    From what I understand his original name was Yeshua, a common name back then. So It’s not improbable that there was a carpenter going under the name Yeshua. But in my opinion, probably quite a lot, actually!
     

  32. #31  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,536
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sokol-ballaci View Post
    do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible?
    I’ll stand corrected, but the letter ‘J’ (And it’s pronunciation) didn’t exist 2000 years ago. So there was nobody called Jesus back then.

    From what I understand his original name was Yeshua, a common name back then. So It’s not improbable that there was a carpenter going under the name Yeshua. But in my opinion, probably quite a lot, actually!
    In modern Arabic the name is 9issa (9 being used for the "ein" sound in the throat that one gets in Arabic but not in other languages.) And in Latin the J is pronounced as a Y or I. Presumably the name is that same as Joshua.
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sokol-ballaci View Post
    do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible?
    I’ll stand corrected, but the letter ‘J’ (And it’s pronunciation) didn’t exist 2000 years ago. So there was nobody called Jesus back then.

    From what I understand his original name was Yeshua, a common name back then. So It’s not improbable that there was a carpenter going under the name Yeshua. But in my opinion, probably quite a lot, actually!
    In modern Arabic the name is 9issa (9 being used for the "ein" sound in the throat that one gets in Arabic but not in other languages.) And in Latin the J is pronounced as a Y or I. Presumably the name is that same as Joshua.
    Joshua (Hoshe'a ,Jeshua, Yeshua, Yehoshua) means "to rescue" or "to deliver." Within narratives of the Torah and Ketuvim, the names are associated with Joshua's (son of Nun) conquest of the land of Canaan after the death of Moses, and with Joshua's (son of Jozadak and the High Priest) constructing of the 2nd Temple after Cyrus the King of Persia allowed Jews in Babylonian captivity to return home. Both of these "Joshua" are associated with delivering the Ancient Jews to their homeland.

    Jeshua
    Yeshua
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Correction:
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sokol-ballaci View Post
    do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible?
    I believe most of the bible is so childishly transparent, that reading between the lines lays it bare. The story of Jesus begins with Mary claiming she's still a virgin because she was impregnated by an extraterrestrial. Such BS could only come from real persons.
    Mary made no such claim, though she never pretended Joseph was the father. Apparently Jesus' illegitimate status was common knowledge in Mary's hometown of Nazareth. The extraterrestrial paternity myth was invented by early Christians to both elevate Christ and counteract the local belief that Mary had been used by a Roman soldier. The miraculous virginity thing appears even later, when Christianity grew obsessed with chastity.

    Anyway, this closer inspection reaffirms the childish transparency of the bible, and my view that real history can be got from it if one takes author's motives into account. Fun for those who like whodunnits.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Re: Mary's virginity: In Isaiah 7 which says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive. . ." the word translated virgin, in the Hebrew could carry the connotation of a childless young woman. It did not necessitate that the young women was chaste as the English word virgin would connote. She could be married or unmarried. Whether one believes Mary was chaste or not, she did fulfill the meaning of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah in that she was young and childless.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by sokol-ballaci View Post
    do you believe is the story of Jesus as written in the bible?
    No. The most likely explanation is that the figure is an amalgamation of a number of people.

    I would question a person's ability to critically think if they believed the story of Jesus as it is written in the bible.
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Re: Mary's virginity: In Isaiah 7 which says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive. . ." the word translated virgin, in the Hebrew could carry the connotation of a childless young woman. It did not necessitate that the young women was chaste as the English word virgin would connote. She could be married or unmarried. Whether one believes Mary was chaste or not, she did fulfill the meaning of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah in that she was young and childless.
    You know it. Girls of the time where commonly engaged before they were old enough to mess around. But you know it was foolish or disingenuous to point the Isaiah prophesy at Jesus in any case. My sense is that while Jesus could claim himself both son of David and son of God with a poker face, his family rathered David, and his followers rathered God. I suspect Joseph's relation to the David line was distant and tenuous at best, just like most of us who cherish a family connection to an historic figure.

    EDIT: I've read that people at the time had a somewhat mystical understanding of conception. An offspring is conceived by three agencies: the seed of the father, the flesh of the mother, and the will of God. So in a sense, everybody (and every goat and chicken) is conceived by God. Well, it's just something to consider when we read and try to understand these people.


    @Busy Bee. So you suspect Jesus is an amalgamation? That's intriguing, could you investigate ...i.e. use critical thinking... and elaborate on the statement?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    That's one way of interpreting the literature of Isaiah 7:10-16"Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz...the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.


    Another is keeping it rightly of the context of that time (approx. 732 B.C.E.) and the chapters 8-10 that follow. These chapters state that Judan was under attack by two kings, Pekah king of Israel and Rezin king of Aram(Syria). They were killed by a flooding river and by the Assyrians. They chronicle how the wife of King Ahaz will have an heir. Ahaz first born was Maher-shalal-hash-baz as god commanded her husband Isaiah (Isaiah 8:3). This reward of "immortality" is granted for obeying god in the form of a male heir and extended lineage, is consistent throughout the Hebrew Bible.


    Immanuel in this context refers the the Jewish people that reside in Judah (the nation state). This is similar to later parts of Isaiah, where a "suffering servant" is reference. The suffering servant is the people of the nation state of Judah.

    Nowhere in the NT is Jesus ever called Immanuel (compare Isa 7:14 with Luke 1:31). If the character Jesus was Immanuel what were the two Kingdoms (Kings) which were abandoned that are contemporary to his time? In the early 1st century what nations dreaded Judah, the protection of its god, and when were theses nations defeated?

    The Assyrians? No.
    The Babylonians? No.
    The Persians? No.
    The Greeks? No.
    The Romans? No.

    When did Jesus eat cream and honey?

    The words in Matthew's gospel are a failed attempt to data mine the Tanakh for legitimacy and manufacture a prophecy.
     

  39. #38  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    @Busy Bee. So you suspect Jesus is an amalgamation? That's intriguing, could you investigate ...i.e. use critical thinking... and elaborate on the statement?
    I posted this before to prove that Jesus was not one person, but many:

    The story of Jesus is cobbled together from a whole host of sources, all of which pre-dated him:
    * Like Horus, he was virgin born on the 25th December.
    * Like Horus, he taught in the temple when 12 years old.
    * Like Horus, he was a teacher who had 12 disciples.
    * Like Horus, he was baptised in a river.
    * Like Horus, he gave a sermon on the mount.
    * Like Horus, he healed the sick,
    * Like Horus, he raised a man from the dead.
    * Like Chrishna, he was in danger of death in infancy.
    * Like Chrishna, he was descended from a royal line.
    * Like Chrishna, he was meek and mild.
    * Like Chrishna, he was called 'Lord'.
    * Like Chrishna, he had been the object of prophesy.
    * Like Chrishna, he spent his life working miracles and preaching.
    * Like Chrishna, he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
    * Like Chrishna, he descended into hell.
    * Like Chrishna, he wrote nothing down, but left his doctrines to be preached by his disciples.
    * Like Mithras, his birth was accompanied by shepherds.
    * Like Tammuz, he died with a wound in his side, rose again after 3 days and left the tomb open with a rock rolled aside.
    * Like Apollonius of Tyana, he was an itinerant miracle worker and preacher.
    * Like Apollonius of Tyana, he was credited with prophesies, exorcisms, cures and raising the dead.
    * Like Apollonius of Tyana, he went off into the wilderness to encounter demons.
    * Like Elisha, he fed a large crowd with an impossibly small amount of food.

    And so on to take in many other characters from antiquity.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    There were, apparently, hundreds at one time who claimed to be Spartacus. But there was only one Spartacus. There have been many before and since Jesus who claimed to be God's Messiah. But there is only one Messiah. One may choose to believe whether or not there was a Messiah and, if so, whether or not Jesus was that Messiah. If there are hundreds to choose from, there are a lot of potential wrong choices, but only one right choice.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  41. #40  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    but only one right choice.
    For variable values of "right".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Incidentally, Dywyddyr, I knew you were a Brit. I just cannot bring myself to believe any honest-to-goodness American is writing the un-American stuff Obama says. We are now wondering how long it will be before he gives up on being King George III's successor as King of the Colonies to assume the role of Messiah.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Incidentally, Dywyddyr, I knew you were a Brit. I just cannot bring myself to believe any honest-to-goodness American is writing the un-American stuff Obama says. We are now wondering how long it will be before he gives up on being King George III's successor as King of the Colonies to assume the role of Messiah.

    And what is the relevance of this remark?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
     

  44. #43  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Incidentally, Dywyddyr, I knew you were a Brit. I just cannot bring myself to believe any honest-to-goodness American is writing the un-American stuff Obama says.
    Whut?

    (And I'm not a "Brit" - I'm English).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The story of Jesus is cobbled together from a whole host of sources, all of which pre-dated him
    Okay, that's a sort of Robin Hood hypothesis, that fantastic yet universal elements get attributed to one figure. Once we've decided he's an archetype, we flesh him out accordingly. I'll agree to this. Contrast the modern Catholic portrayal of Mary with the sparse description of her of the bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Jesus was not one person, but many
    This is a different claim. I think you're saying there never was a kooky hermit named Robin Hood, lionized by time as an adventurous champion. The difference is between accuracy of story, and truth of basic historicity. Most believe Jesus was a real historical person, who - yes - did get archetypal traits like those in your list, attributed to him.

    For thought experiment, I want you to consider President Fremont (democrat). I guess you know little about him. But one may form a lot of assumptions about Ferris Fremont, where he grew up, how he dressed, did he or did he not kiss babies. Real or not, you'll tend to imagine him as an amalgamation of other presidents. President Fremont didn't last long in office owing to the number of the beast tattooed below his receding hairline.

    Now let's consider President Harrison. Don't worry Benjamin Harrison is believed real by authoritative sources. But look how much he's got in common with earlier presidents!

    He was a republican.
    He was the grandson of a statesman.
    His schoolhouse had one room.
    He later studied law.
    He inherited money and founded a club.
    He served in the army.
    He lost the popular vote but won by electoral college.
    Brass instruments were played for his inauguration.
    He tried but failed to advance the rights of African-Americans.
    He traveled to Europe.
    He died of influenza.

    Not much else to say, unless we indulge in hearsay and speculation.

    By your logic, ox, this is simply a cobbling-together of presidents that pre-date Harrison.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    By your logic, ox, this is simply a cobbling-together of presidents that pre-date Harrison.
    Looking for the unique Harrison miracles.......

    What gives Ox's logic weight is the comparative list are of unique event, not of which can be credibly verified for any of them, not easily verified commonplace occurrences.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    The problem with Pong's comparison is that the other people to whom Benny is compared actually were presidents. Benny never claimed to be the one and only eternal president of the U.S. And, until now, no president has ever appeared to think he was sent from God. When it comes to determining a Messiah, no matter how many claimed similarities there may be, only one can be the real Messiah sent from God. Each person (in the free Western World) can choose whether or not there was or is or will be a Messiah and if Jesus is that Messiah or that there is not and will not be a Messiah. As with my Spartacus example where several people are claiming to be Spartacus, if the Roman general had known that a certain person claiming to be Spartacus was actually a person he knew as Publicus, it would not invalidate the claims of any others or prove the absence of Spartacus.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    The problem with Pong's comparison is that the other people to whom Benny is compared actually were presidents. Benny never claimed to be the one and only eternal president of the U.S. And, until now, no president has ever appeared to think he was sent from God. When it comes to determining a Messiah, no matter how many claimed similarities there may be, only one can be the real Messiah sent from God. Each person (in the free Western World) can choose whether or not there was or is or will be a Messiah and if Jesus is that Messiah or that there is not and will not be a Messiah. As with my Spartacus example where several people are claiming to be Spartacus, if the Roman general had known that a certain person claiming to be Spartacus was actually a person he knew as Publicus, it would not invalidate the claims of any others or prove the absence of Spartacus.
    There may have been a person named Jesus just as there may have been a person called fred. however there is no contemporaneous evidence that a Jesus person existed, here is a list of persons who lived around the same time. "However?" Evidence for Christ
    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."
     

  49. #48  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Oops!
    [A]ncient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.
    "Was Jesus based on a real person from history? "The short answer is no," Atwill insists, "in fact he may be the only fictional character in literature whose entire life story can be traced to other sources. Once those sources are all laid bare, there's simply nothing left.""
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  50. #49  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Oops!
    [A]ncient confessions recently uncovered now prove, according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.
    "Was Jesus based on a real person from history? "The short answer is no," Atwill insists, "in fact he may be the only fictional character in literature whose entire life story can be traced to other sources. Once those sources are all laid bare, there's simply nothing left.""
    not sure about this one - why did my conspiracy theory sensors start perking up whilst reading your link ?
    pineapples likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  51. #50  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    not sure about this one - why did my conspiracy theory sensors start perking up whilst reading your link ?
    I dunno.
    Why did your conspiracy theory... oh, it's not a riddle.
    Very recent "discovery".
    Only (announced) two days ago.
    But, essentially, it's predicated greatly on exactly what Ox pointed out a couple of posts back.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    The obvious thing here is that none of the contributors has any scholastic work in ancient literature nor the standards used to evaluate it. I would also wonder if any of the college educated contributors here ever took a survey course on the History of Western Civilization or a class in either logic or ethics.
    Last edited by daytonturner; October 10th, 2013 at 08:14 PM. Reason: to correct agreement between subject and verb
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ēlâhî ēlâhî lamâ šabaqtanî

    translation
    nice view of bethlehem, damn, my balls itch
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    wall street
    Posts
    29
    I have a new question. Bible what Bible? Are there different ones? Has anyone ever really read the thing? This Jesus character is famous,he must have been someone.
     

  55. #54  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    I would also wonder if any of the college educated contributors here ever took a survey course on the History of Western Civilization or a class in either logic or ethics.
    History? You think it's fixed?
    Ethics? Whut?

    Then again, regarding logic:
    Quote Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs View Post
    This Jesus character is famous,he must have been someone.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Zarathustra, Siddhartha, Jesus all real people
    all grossly misrepresented and misunderstood

    one commenter was amazed that the frail little body of the Buddha yielded 28 pecks of relics.
    Last edited by sculptor; October 11th, 2013 at 09:40 AM.
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    wall street
    Posts
    29
    Dywyddwr. Were you answering my question? I don't mean to put you off balance,but can you read? If so have you read a book called the Bible. If this question is too difficult ,just say so.
     

  58. #57  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs View Post
    Dywyddwr. Were you answering my question?
    Did I quote your question?
    Did my post look like an answer to your question?

    I don't mean to put you off balance,but can you read?
    No.
    I understand posts by using telepathy.

    If so have you read a book called the Bible.
    Of course.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    This is more believable than anything in the Bible:



    And yet it isn't. I am not even sure that if there was a Jesus character that he was one man in history.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    The obvious thing here is that none of the contributors has any scholastic work in ancient literature nor the standards used to evaluate it. I would also wonder if any of the college educated contributors here ever took a survey course on the History of Western Civilization or a class in either logic or ethics.
    I did and have, However I'm loathed to know what relevance would it have to a Jesus persons existence. As there is no contemporaneous evidence at all for such a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs View Post
    I have a new question. Bible what Bible? Are there different ones?
    Yes several.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs
    Has anyone ever really read the thing? This Jesus character is famous,he must have been someone.
    Yes I have and the Qu'ran, and the Vedas. Also James Bond is famous too, therefore using your logic (which is a logical fallacy (an appeal to popularity)) he must have been someone too.
    pyoko 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."
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Pavlos: I dunno exactly what you mean when you say, "As there is no contemporaneous evidence at all for such a person." What is contemporaneous evidence? Can you give me any ancient person for whom there was contemporaneous evidence? Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Attila the Hun. Or is Jesus the only person to who you attribute this lack of evidence. And which of the studies I mentioned have you had -- ancient lit, Western Civ, ethics, logic?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  62. #61  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Attila the Hun.
    Yes, yes, yes and... yes.

    And which of the studies I mentioned have you had -- ancient lit, Western Civ, ethics, logic?
    Relevance please.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Dywyddry said:
    Yes, yes, yes and... yes.
    This is by far the most convincing, factually supported argument you have ever presented. This is stunningly persuasive. I am wilting in the glow of your superior argument.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Pavlos: I dunno exactly what you mean when you say, "As there is no contemporaneous evidence at all for such a person." What is contemporaneous evidence? Can you give me any ancient person for whom there was contemporaneous evidence? Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Attila the Hun. Or is Jesus the only person to who you attribute this lack of evidence. And which of the studies I mentioned have you had -- ancient lit, Western Civ, ethics, logic?
    All the above. And you just shot yourself in the foot, Whether there is evidence or not for those people does not make yours legit now does it. Oh and incidentally we are not comparing like for like here, we are comparing man with superman, a huge difference. Jesus is the only one that asks us to suspend belief. So an extremely poor comparison on your part. There is no evidence that a man called Jesus lived at the time claimed as nobody wrote about him. There no information of his exploits, nothing written of his super human feats as it happened. All information comes much later. There were literally hundreds of writers and historians of the time yet none wrote of him. There were even other messiahs, which were written about but not Jesus. Why is that? perhaps he wasn't that special. Or he didn't exist. It has to be one or the other.
    pineapples and stonecutter like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
     

  65. #64  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    This is by far the most convincing, factually supported argument you have ever presented. This is stunningly persuasive. I am wilting in the glow of your superior argument.
    Get a grip: I answered the question as asked.
    Or are you incapable of Googling (which you should have done before asking - then you wouldn't have had to)?

    And which of the studies I mentioned have you had -- ancient lit, Western Civ, ethics, logic?
    Relevance please.
    Still waiting.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Pavlos: I dunno exactly what you mean when you say, "As there is no contemporaneous evidence at all for such a person." What is contemporaneous evidence?
    Like if someone from the time wrote, "Oh that Jesus who they call Christ, making trouble again!" There is zero evidence of that kind. It's all retrospective.

    On the other hand, Plato and Aristotle are pretty weak on contemporary reference themselves.

    All three figures are being talked about as real within a generation of their deaths. And it's very doubtful a conspiracy of writers would dare invent a person, and claim he lived famously, just a generation or two later. Their contemporaries would balk, because if the figure really was well known, they would have heard about it before. Set the story hundreds of years in the past, in a distant land, then just maybe a Jonathan Swift might pull off the deception.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  67. #66  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    On the other hand, Plato and Aristotle are pretty weak on contemporary reference themselves.
    Except that, in their cases, we have writing by them.
    I.e. if it wasn't actually "Plato/ Aristotle" then it was some other guy that called himself, and we call, Plato/ Aristotle: a difference which makes no difference is no difference at all.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13
    Science cannot address miracles so your absolute statements are very unscientific. Yes I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God and savior of those who put their faith in him. He died on the cross to take away Believer's sin.
     

  69. #68  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Science cannot address miracles so your absolute statements are very unscientific.
    Whut?
    We have zero evidence of "miracles".

    Yes I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God and savior of those who put their faith in him. He died on the cross to take away Believer's sin.
    So what?
    pavlos, MrMojo1 and Busy Bee like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  70. #69  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    a difference which makes no difference is no difference at all.
    Well then if there were other messiahs too, as Pavlos says, then you may be content to think it was another charlatan called Christ, like the lesser known Uri Christ, they misnamed Jesus for some reason. Not the simplest explanation...
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  71. #70  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Well then if there were other messiahs too, as Pavlos says, then you may be content to think it was another charlatan called Christ, like the lesser known Uri Christ, they misnamed Jesus for some reason. Not the simplest explanation...
    But we don't have any writings from "Christ" i.e. everything we "know" about him is second-hand.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13
    Pavlos, you are dead wrong for we have many copies from many different geographical areas which means we have a very accurate translation of the early documents. Try reading Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christ - a journalists personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus".
     

  73. #72  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Pavlos, you are dead wrong for we have many copies from many different geographical areas which means we have a very accurate translation of the early documents.
    Accuracy of translation does not mean, or even imply, accuracy of the orginal with regard to actuality.

    Try reading Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christ - a journalists personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus".
    "Strobel is an unabashed advocate who’s presenting his case on its best possible terms. This is crystal clear by the soft-ball questions he asks – and doesn’t ask – but also by the “experts” Strobel interviews, who almost without exception share the exact same beliefs he does."
    http://www.makingmyway.org/?p=507
    "Well-intentioned people like Lee Strobel and his ‘expert witnesses’ in The Case for Christ have been inspired to speak half-truths, misrepresentations, and plain absurdities in defense of Christian doctrine. Earl Doherty confutes Strobel and his theologians point for point so thoroughly and convincingly that one is left wondering, how did I not see that before? Christian apologetics’ faith-based thought processes contrast with Doherty’s reasoned refutation and clearly reveal how intellectual integrity is sacrificed at religion’s altar of ‘believe at any price’."
    Challenging the Verdict

    pavlos, MrMojo1 and stonecutter like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  74. #73  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    we don't have any writings from "Christ"
    Okay, but if I take that standard for historicity, in fairness I must apply it to all historical figures, including references to servants, enemies, trade partners, on and on. I don't cherish such bias against Christians it'd be worth the effort.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Pavlos, you are dead wrong for we have many copies from many different geographical areas which means we have a very accurate translation of the early documents. Try reading Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christ - a journalists personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus".
    Such as? Provide credible links. Lee Strobel is an interesting chap, but he has pretty much zero credibility, or training to analyse or comment on the historical context or veracity of anything he viewed. He's made a lot of money though using the "The Case for (pick a Christian topic)" model to sell to millions of uncritical faithful believers.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13
    Scientifically you cannot say the miracles did not happen.
     

  77. #76  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Scientifically you cannot say the miracles did not happen.
    Er, wrong.
    Unless there's evidence then we can be quite comfortable saying they didn't happen.
    Especially as, by definition, "miracles" break all the laws of nature (you know, the ones discovered and formalised by science) by their very nature.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13
    I would challenge you to read the book for yourself and look what he presents. The documents are strong evidence that the gospels are accurate. We can read them and see that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, God in the flesh. Lee Strobel became a Christian after he looked at the evidence. He was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune so he knows about evidence and sources. Some atheistic critic does have his own agenda.
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13
    It is your faith in science that you make such a statement. You would have to go back in time to the moment that the miracle supposedly took place to prove it scientifically that the miracle never did happen. This time travel would be problematic for you!
     

  80. #79  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    I would challenge you to read the book for yourself and look what he presents. The documents are strong evidence that the gospels are accurate. We can read them and see that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, God in the flesh. Lee Strobel became a Christian after he looked at the evidence. He was a reporter for the Chicago Tribune so he knows about evidence and sources. Some atheistic critic does have his own agenda.
    So you don't think Strobel had his own agenda?
    And, given the critiques, he apparently doesn't know that much about "evidence and sources".

    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    It is your faith in science that you make such a statement.
    Wrong.

    You would have to go back in time to the moment that the miracle supposedly took place to prove it scientifically that the miracle never did happen.
    Also wrong: it's up to those making the claim to show that it's correct.
    Please try not to be so silly.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    Yes. I believe the story of Jesus as presented in the Bible.
     

  82. #81  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Strobel's agenda:
    "The Case for Christ is a summary of Strobel's interviews with thirteen leading Evangelical apologists, including Craig Blomberg, Bruze Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, Ben Witherington III, and William Lane Craig.
    In light of Strobel's frequent reminders that he used to be a hard-nosed, skeptical journalist, I skimmed the table of contents and index to see which critics of Christianity he interviewed. In so doing, I discovered a glaring deficiency in Strobel's journalism: Strobel did not interview any critics of Christian apologetics" (My italics).
    Review of Lee Strobel THE CASE FOR CHRIST
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Pavlos, you are dead wrong for we have many copies from many different geographical areas which means we have a very accurate translation of the early documents. Try reading Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christ - a journalists personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus".
    Such as? Provide credible links. Lee Strobel is an interesting chap, but he has pretty much zero credibility, or training to analyse or comment on the historical context or veracity of anything he viewed. He's made a lot of money though using the "The Case for (pick a Christian topic)" model to sell to millions of uncritical faithful believers.
    How about the Greek manuscripts, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. There are secondary translations like the Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic, etc. Lee Strobel relies on respected experts such as Metzger.
     

  84. #83  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Syriac: dated to the 5th century.
    Coptic: made at the end of the 2nd century.
    Latin: oldest one - 350AD.
    The rest are also translations.
    How do these help your case?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    wall street
    Posts
    29
    I beleive the greek one is the oldest.So many athiests.THere are churches based on jesus and they use mostly the greek version.Most people never read the Bible.Many many churches and counteries founded on strange beliefs and religions too.God the lord jesus and moses and egypt the children isreal and then there is this forum full of athiests and closed minded dimwads who think they themselves designed the universe.Hallalulla
     

  86. #85  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Phd. Cubs View Post
    I beleive the greek one is the oldest.So many athiests.THere are churches based on jesus and they use mostly the greek version.Most people never read the Bible.Many many churches and counteries founded on strange beliefs and religions too.God the lord jesus and moses and egypt the children isreal and then there is this forum full of athiests and closed minded dimwads who think they themselves designed the universe.Hallalulla
    Plus people that can spell AND people that aren't close-minded (that's usually the domain of theists).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13
    Dywy, you need to think like a scientist. If you have number of translations from different parts of the world then you have strong confidence that the early manuscripts are accurate to the time that the branch off occurred, given the similarities of the text. No other book is as well documented as the Bible! We even have fragments of the gospel of John dated to about 100 to 150 AD written on papyrus. There are 306 unicial manuscripts dating back as early as the third century, the most important being the Codex Sinaiticus which is a complete translation of the New Testament (350AD). There are 5664 early Greek manuscripts as well as thousands of other ancient New Testament manuscripts in other languages. There are 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus another 8,000 in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian.
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    If we assume for a moment that this person Jesus (as described in the Bible) existed, then what does that imply?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13
    Well if Jesus existed and we have an accurate understanding of his teachings, then we can make an assessment of the truth of His claims. Was he the Son of God that he claimed to be? Did the living God come to earth to willingly die for his people that believe in him?
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Dywy, you need to think like a scientist. If you have number of translations from different parts of the world then you have strong confidence that the early manuscripts are accurate to the time that the branch off occurred, .
    How do you figure that? It adds nothing to the veracity or accuracy of the original stories. All it really points to is how popular those stories were to the people living 2nd to 6th centuries CE --and that's probably as much as can be said.

    Scientifically you cannot say the miracles did not happen.

    You've stated that twice now--it demonstrates a lack of logic and great confusion about where the burden of proof sits.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Well if Jesus existed and we have an accurate understanding of his teachings, then we can make an assessment of the truth of His claims. Was he the Son of God that he claimed to be? Did the living God come to earth to willingly die for his people that believe in him?

    How is one able to test those claims?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Well if Jesus existed and we have an accurate understanding of his teachings, then we can make an assessment of the truth of His claims. Was he the Son of God that he claimed to be? Did the living God come to earth to willingly die for his people that believe in him?
    Historically It interests me if he really existed or not (More so than Robin Hood and his Merry Men!), but it’s those alleged “miracles”, that seemingly defy reality, which require an explanation. Eyewitness accounts are not enough to rewrite the laws of physics.

    It hasn’t yet been demonstrated scientifically that you can turn water into wine with a single thought or a command. So there’s no rational reason to accept such a claim. However, if you wanted, you could pour wine into a jug of water and have watered down wine, but that probably wouldn’t go down as miracle, unless you’re a cash-strapped student.
     

  93. #92  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Dywy, you need to think like a scientist.
    I do.

    If you have number of translations from different parts of the world then you have strong confidence that the early manuscripts are accurate to the time that the branch off occurred, given the similarities of the text.
    What utter bollocks.
    All it means is that someone, somewhere, thought it was worth translating.
    It says nothing whatsoever about the veracity of the material
    You need to learn how to think.

    No other book is as well documented as the Bible!
    So what?

    We even have fragments of the gospel of John dated to about 100 to 150 AD written on papyrus. There are 306 unicial manuscripts dating back as early as the third century, the most important being the Codex Sinaiticus which is a complete translation of the New Testament (350AD). There are 5664 early Greek manuscripts as well as thousands of other ancient New Testament manuscripts in other languages. There are 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus another 8,000 in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian.
    I.e. nothing that was written at the time.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  94. #93  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Well if Jesus existed and we have an accurate understanding of his teachings, then we can make an assessment of the truth of His claims. Was he the Son of God that he claimed to be? Did the living God come to earth to willingly die for his people that believe in him?
    Exactly. IF he existed and IF the Bible is accurate THEN...
    Do you see the problem yet?
    pavlos likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Pavlos, you are dead wrong for we have many copies from many different geographical areas which means we have a very accurate translation of the early documents.
    Am I, Really! Are any of them contemporaneous, Short answer No. So you could have a million copies yet none of them would be relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyborg3 View Post
    Try reading Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christ - a journalists personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus".
    I have read many pro books for christ by many different authors yet none have ever supplied any contemporaneous evidence, and neither has Strobel. So all are worthless.

    It is nonsensical to say we have many good translation, if none, nor the original are contemporaneous.
    MrMojo1 and stonecutter like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Pavlos continues to hark on the idea that the Biblical writings (of the New Testament) and not contemporaneous with the life of Christ.

    Either Pavlos has changed the meaning of contemporaneous and confused it with simultaneous, or is making an inappropriate application of the term contemporaneous.

    Webster provides two different aspects of contemporary: A. "Existing or occurring at the same time; belonging to the same age or date; B. One belonging to the same time period with another or others; a person of the same age as another."

    Unless you are in the habit of rewriting history, as is Dywy, all of the writings of the New Testament are attributed to contemporaries of Jesus. Of the four Gospel writers, Matthew and John were among Jesus' inner circle; Mark was there in the late portion of Jesus ministry and then remained a companion of Peter, who was also in Jesus inner circle. Luke was an historian/physician who had heard about Jesus and determined to investigate the stories he had heard, all within a few years of the Crucifixion.

    Of the Epistles, Paul was the major writer. He was also alive during the days of Jesus ministry although, at that time, he was an adamant Jewish Pharisee who became a persecutor of Christianity much as the natural materialists on this forum are. Of the other Epistle writers, only the identity of the author of Hebrews remains in question. All the others were known associates of Jesus including his own (half)brother James.

    Somebody else complained that there are no writing directly attributable to Jesus. Nor have I ever seen anything allegedly written by Cleopatra or Alexander the Great. There are numerous luminaries from history to whom no writing are attributed.

    The argument that there are no contemporaneous writings is factually incorrect and little more than a red herring.

    Dywy's attempt to date the extent documents has no basis in scholarly study of ancient manuscripts. Dating manuscripts would involve two things. First is when was the document you are looking at produced. Second would be when was the original document produced. There are no ancient documents for which the extent text are as closely dated to the originals as are the extent Biblical texts.We have no original ancient documents other than those which were carved in stone such as early Egyptian writings which were mostly designed to extol the merits of the subject of the writing.

    Cyborg3 will eventually learn that truth, history, actual factual data and scholarship mean nothing to the post-modern pseudo scientifically oriented non-Christians who post here.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Pavlos continues to hark on the idea that the Biblical writings (of the New Testament) and not contemporaneous with the life of Christ.

    Either Pavlos has changed the meaning of contemporaneous and confused it with simultaneous, or is making an inappropriate application of the term contemporaneous.

    Webster provides two different aspects of contemporary: A. "Existing or occurring at the same time; belonging to the same age or date; B. One belonging to the same time period with another or others; a person of the same age as another."

    Unless you are in the habit of rewriting history, as is Dywy, all of the writings of the New Testament are attributed to contemporaries of Jesus. Of the four Gospel writers, Matthew and John were among Jesus' inner circle; Mark was there in the late portion of Jesus ministry and then remained a companion of Peter, who was also in Jesus inner circle. Luke was an historian/physician who had heard about Jesus and determined to investigate the stories he had heard, all within a few years of the Crucifixion.

    Of the Epistles, Paul was the major writer. He was also alive during the days of Jesus ministry although, at that time, he was an adamant Jewish Pharisee who became a persecutor of Christianity much as the natural materialists on this forum are. Of the other Epistle writers, only the identity of the author of Hebrews remains in question. All the others were known associates of Jesus including his own (half)brother James.

    Somebody else complained that there are no writing directly attributable to Jesus. Nor have I ever seen anything allegedly written by Cleopatra or Alexander the Great. There are numerous luminaries from history to whom no writing are attributed.

    The argument that there are no contemporaneous writings is factually incorrect and little more than a red herring.

    Dywy's attempt to date the extent documents has no basis in scholarly study of ancient manuscripts. Dating manuscripts would involve two things. First is when was the document you are looking at produced. Second would be when was the original document produced. There are no ancient documents for which the extent text are as closely dated to the originals as are the extent Biblical texts.We have no original ancient documents other than those which were carved in stone such as early Egyptian writings which were mostly designed to extol the merits of the subject of the writing.

    And what are your sources?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
     

  98. #97  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Webster provides two different aspects of contemporary: A. "Existing or occurring at the same time; belonging to the same age or date; B. One belonging to the same time period with another or others; a person of the same age as another."
    Unless you are in the habit of rewriting history, as is Dywy, all of the writings of the New Testament are attributed to contemporaries of Jesus.
    Wrong again.
    Even the few that were (supposedly) written by contemporaries were written MUCH later than the events they purport to describe: i.e. well after the story had taken hold and therefore (probably) subject to embellishment (and faulty memory).
    Matthew: but according to the majority of modern scholars it is unlikely that this Gospel was written by an eyewitness.
    Mark: appears to rely on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, and which tells against the tradition that the gospel was based on Peter's preaching.
    Luke: Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text.
    John: Today, however, most scholars agree that John 21 is an appendix to the Gospel, which originally ended at John 20:30–31.[92] The majority of scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95,[70][93] and propose that the author made use of two major sources, a "Signs" source (a collection of seven miracle stories) and a "Discourse" source.
    Paul: a mix of Paul and (an)other writer(s).

    Somebody else complained that there are no writing directly attributable to Jesus. Nor have I ever seen anything allegedly written by Cleopatra or Alexander the Great. There are numerous luminaries from history to whom no writing are attributed.
    Oh dear, you missed the point. I brought up writings BY a particular figure as a an example. Because there were few contemporary records ABOUT those figures.
    Cleopatra and Alexander are attested to in by other people in contemporary writings.

    The argument that there are no contemporaneous writings is factually incorrect
    Wrong.

    and little more than a red herring.
    And wrong.

    Dywy's attempt to date the extent documents has no basis in scholarly study of ancient manuscripts.
    Wrong again.
    Except that they weren't MY "attempts" - they were taken (and yes, mea culpa, I should have given links) straight from the relevant Wiki pages. I.e. dates decided upon by scholars.
    For example: The Old Syriac version of the four Gospels is preserved today in only two manuscripts, ... The manuscript is dated paleographically to the 5th century.

    Getting tired of ineffectual flailing yet?
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Dywy said:
    Wrong.
    Wrong.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Pavlos continues to hark on the idea that the Biblical writings (of the New Testament) and not contemporaneous with the life of Christ.
    Either Pavlos has changed the meaning of contemporaneous and confused it with simultaneous, or is making an inappropriate application of the term contemporaneous.
    No mistake here. What evidence is there that existed at or occurred in the same period of time? The ball is in your court?
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Unless you are in the habit of rewriting history, as is Dywy, all of the writings of the New Testament are attributed to contemporaries of Jesus.
    Oh are they, care to supply this evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Of the four Gospel writers, Matthew and John were among Jesus' inner circle;
    And you know this how.? As there is no contemporaneous evidence for jesus then there will be none in regard to his so called desciples. Please try to be serious.
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Mark was there in the late portion of Jesus ministry and then remained a companion of Peter, who was also in Jesus inner circle. Luke was an historian/physician who had heard about Jesus and determined to investigate the stories he had heard, all within a few years of the Crucifixion.
    Of the Epistles, Paul was the major writer. He was also alive during the days of Jesus ministry although, at that time, he was an adamant Jewish Pharisee who became a persecutor of Christianity much as the natural materialists on this forum are. Of the other Epistle writers, only the identity of the author of Hebrews remains in question. All the others were known associates of Jesus including his own (half)brother James.
    All completely wrong and not contemporaneous.

    G.Mark: It is consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be written was G.Mark - but it clearly was NOT by an eye-witness, for several reasons :
    * G.Mark shows ignorance of Palestine geography,
    * G.Mark shows dependence on oral tradition,
    * G.Mark was most likely written for a Roman audience,
    * Ireneus says G.Mark was written in Rome.
    * G.Mark was largely crafted from the whole cloth of the OT.
    Gospel of Mark
    For more detail, I suggest Michael Turton's great work on G.Mark:
    Index to Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

    It is sometimes argued that Mark was the secretary of Peter, but this seems unlikely for several other reasons -
    * there is no evidence in the NT stories to support Mark being Peter's secretary,
    * G.Mark shows the structure of literature crafted from the Jewish scriptures, not recorded conversations,
    * G.Mark includes many scenes in Peter was NOT present, which can only mean they are fiction.
    * Peter is a cowardly dullard in G.Mark which ends with Peter un-redeemed after having betrayed Jesus (G.Mark ended 16:8 with the empty tomb - G.Mark 16:9-20 is merely the most popular of one of a number of later endings which were attached to the abrupt end 16:8.). A secretary recording the words of a hallowed elder would hardly portray him like that.
    It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Mark (and is the source of the Peter connection) - but Papias refers to G.Mark being the recollections of Peter but "adapted as needed" ... "but not in order". This just does not match at all well with G.Mark, which is in chronological order, and shows no sign of being the adapted words of Peter.

    G.Matthew: It is the firm consensus of scholars that G.Matthew was NOT written by a disciple, because :
    * it depends largely on G.Mark, copied word for word, while making changes based on theology, not history
    * it conflicts with statements by Papias and Ireneus,
    * it shows signs of being a 2nd or 3rd generation work
    Gospel of Matthew
    It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Matthew - but Papias refers to G.Mark being written in Hebrew - this just does not match at all well with G.Matthew, which was written in Greek.

    1,2 Peter: Scholars agree that the letters attributed to Peter were forged by 2 different people, neither of whom had ever met Jesus - 1 Peter probably writen in Rome c.90, 2 Peter in early-mid 2nd century.
    1 Peter
    2 Peter

    G.John: Scholars agree that the Gospel of John could NOT be by an eye-witness - because :
    * the issue regarding expulsion from the synagogues - such a glaring anachronism could not be by an eye-witness,
    * at one stage this Gospel was believed to be written by Cerinthus (and thus rejected),
    * it tells such a different, and fantastic, story.
    Gospel of John

    all the NT documents (apart from Paul1 but again do bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)are not eye-witness accounts, all are later FORGED by unknown authors who never met Jesus

    * James (FORGED in c.80s)
    * 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
    * 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
    * Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
    * 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
    * Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
    * 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
    * 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
    * Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
    * 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
    * 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
    * 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
    The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby's or in Brown NT Commentary.

    No NT author ever met Jesus
    So,of the NT authors we find -
    * Paul? only met Jesus in a VISION,
    * several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
    * G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
    * G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
    * G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
    * G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
    * Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
    * 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
    * James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
    * 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.

    In other words - the general consensus of modern NT scholars is that NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. You can check this is any modern commentary - try Brown's or the New Jerome or see Peter Kirby's.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Somebody else complained that there are no writing directly attributable to Jesus. Nor have I ever seen anything allegedly written by Cleopatra or Alexander the Great. There are numerous luminaries from history to whom no writing are attributed.
    So what! How does that make yours legit or help your argument?
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    The argument that there are no contemporaneous writings is factually incorrect and little more than a red herring.
    Is it then feel free to prove your point?
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Dywy's attempt to date the extent documents has no basis in scholarly study of ancient manuscripts. Dating manuscripts would involve two things. First is when was the document you are looking at produced. Second would be when was the original document produced. There are no ancient documents for which the extent text are as closely dated to the originals as are the extent Biblical texts.We have no original ancient documents other than those which were carved in stone such as early Egyptian writings which were mostly designed to extol the merits of the subject of the writing.
    And this helps your cause how?
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Cyborg3 will eventually learn that truth, history, actual factual data and scholarship mean nothing to the post-modern pseudo scientifically oriented non-Christians who post here.
    What factual data are you reffering too.
    John Galt, MrMojo1 and stonecutter like this.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    190
    Hey Pavlos, would you mind explaining why you believe the those particular books in the Bible were "forged"? Perhaps post some peer-reviewed material on that too as it would greatly help!

    Thanks!


    Cheers!
    cyborg3 likes this.
    [Analyst/Engineer/Independent]

    "SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK"
     

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Did the person Jesus from the bible actually really existed in the past?
    By RamenNoodles in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 24th, 2013, 07:08 PM
  2. Jesus/God sacrifices to Jesus/God. This is not a sacrifice,
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: February 19th, 2009, 07:50 AM
  3. Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible?
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: December 30th, 2008, 05:08 PM
  4. Jesus PLAGIARIZED making the Bible a FORGERY.
    By newcastle in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 28th, 2008, 01:20 PM
  5. jesus was not the son of god, according to the bible
    By dejawolf in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: October 6th, 2008, 02:19 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
  •