|
Others know more specific details than I, but I think the amount of evidence seems to be just right. There is enough there and enough lacking that it is a matter of faith. If there was unquestionable proof, there would be no point, everyone, with faith or not would believe.
|
Quote:
The book is by Tom Harpur called "The Pagan Christ", Sun Tzu : The Pagan Christ: Is Blind Faith ... - Google Book Search The History Channel program has the same name. In fact I've just watched another History Channel program called "Unmasking The Pagan Christ" - two theologians were asked to produce a reply. I found the programs fascinating but neither program particularly convincing. Both seemed to me to set out to prove an pre-existing belief and make far too much of the evidence quoted. The book says that Jesus did not exist but is merely a rehash of the Egyptian myth of Horus. The reply essentially that the similarities are exaggerated and there are bound to be similarities when describing religious figures. I've made my position clear and I won't trouble people any more. But in the second of the programs one commentator was Elaine Pagels, a Professor of Religion at Princeton and the author of the book The Gnostic Gospels (described by the Modern Library as one of the best 100 books ever written and by Christian conservatives as one of the worst 50 :) ) and a commentator I've found unusually rational in religious debates before. She comments thus: Quote:
Here's another interesting web site dealing with the evidence of Josephus. It gives both the copies of his writings (we do not have the original) from both Christian and Islamic sources. You can see what Christian clerics did to them :) Josephus'Testimony to Jesus You can argue that the Islamic quotation confirms Jesus' existence but even here there is a problem. This passage does not appear in the book Josephus wrote about the time of Jesus but in a much later book - 90 AD. Why? The implication is that Josephus is reacting to the growth of the Christian faith and repeating what is being said of Jesus rather than writing from his own knowledge. For me it adds to the idea that Jesus was a relative unknown in his own time and became well known through the efforts of his followers - he wasn't sufficiently important (or even known to Josephus) for Josephus to mention in his earlier more relevant book but became important and was added to the later one. |
Excellent! I'll have to either pick it up from Amazon or look for those specials on the History channels upcoming programing. Thank you!
|
Another fun modern read is really anything by Karen Armstrong, History of God would be your best bet.
For a fun old school reading try Celsus "True Doctrine" 2nd century anti-Christian writer. one of the few works not burned by the church. Celsus is great because his arguments are really no different than today and even this thread. Even in the 2nd century you can see the problem of legend. Here is some lines from wiki: Christians have no standing in the Old Testament prophecies and their talk of a resurrection that was only revealed to some of their own adherents is foolishness The idea of an incarnation of God is absurd; why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? And why should God choose to come to men as a Jew? The Christian idea of a special providence is nonsense, an insult to the deity. To Celsus, it was much more reasonable to believe that each part of the world has its own special deity; prophets and supernatural messengers had appeared in more places than one. Besides being bad philosophy based on fictitious history, Christianity is not respectable. (H)e says the Christian teachers who are mainly weavers and cobblers have no power over men of education. The qualifications for conversion are ignorance and childish timidity. Finally, "An interesting feature of Celsus' writing is that he refers to Jesus' father by name as Panthera. It is taken by Celsus as given that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a roman soldier of this name." |
Quote:
From your post, Celcus' writings look pretty biased. You want to talk about the bible being hearsay, the gospels were still written hundred and fifty or so years before Celcus' book and yet his hearsay about Jesus' father should be taken as true? He tries to insult anyone who would become Christian. Also, it makes perfect sense for God to reveal himself to humans over any other creature. Humans are the only creature we know of who would be aware of his presence. \\ |
Quote:
There was no NT when he was writing. Who knows what texts made up the Christian religion as he knew it. Quote:
Sure. What doesn't make sense is that if this world was created for us, why have we only inhabited this planet for a fraction of the time it has existed? Why the ebb and flow of dominant creatures that eventually led to us, for the time being, at least? |
Quote:
Well, Celsus' writings are biased, just like the gospels are biased. Even if you take the christian/jew hate out of his texts, he does make some good points about humans superior attitude and thinking that only god himself/herself would be revealed only to humans. Which gospels specifically are you refering to though? Any gospels written before Celsus' book, would have been written about the time when Jesus was around 25ish (going by your 150 year reference), since the best guestamate is his book was written around 175 AD. |
Quote:
That's a valid point. I think this can be explained based on your bias. It's easy for me to say that the world wasn't ready for humans until after all of that time. You could easily say what you just said. Even when I was a kid and I wasn't Christian, I've always found the idea that God could not be proved or disproved fascinating. I understand that it's tempting to only believe what evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt. For me, there is enough evidence to support my faith and what I believe inside to be true, but it makes sense that there is not enough evidence for those that don't belief a certain idea to be true deep down inside. I know some Christians try and say their religion has been proved and while there is evidence supporting it (and not), it's still a matter of faith. For me, that's the point in all of these discussion/arguments over religion because neither side can be proved. |
Quote:
I had the wrong year on his writings, about 100 years then. |
Quote:
That's cool Danny. Happens to the best of us. :) |
Quote:
We're wired differently, I think. :) I personally find this idea an example of how flawed human thinking is. You can't prove something doesn't exist, and that extends well beyond just religion. I can't prove that cavemen didn't ride around in Fred Flintstone's car, and didn't ride on the backs of pterodactyls. There is no reason to think they did however, as nothing has pointed to that being true, outside of a cartoon that came some time after the facts. :) I'll grant that there are (or, at least, certainly were) many reasons to believe in a god or gods however. Likely every single culture that has ever existed on the face of this planet has had their superstitions and religions, all rising out of ignorance, as an attempt to explain the world in a way that makes sense to them. They are all shaped to follow the flow of life and time as it is known to mankind with his birth and death, a beginning and an end, which shows exactly how human-centric they are, and doesn't square up with the actual infiniteness of time. To be honest, I find the "can't prove it exists or doesn't exist" argument to be very frustrating, because if you can't prove it exists, well... doesn't that speak volumes? To me, it does. Anything else is at the very best a theory, and a tenuous one at that. Quote:
I'm happy for you, but doesn't it trouble you that the followers of every major religion now and in the past believed it with the exact same conviction as you? Especially knowing that the invention of religions is a natural and commonly occuring event, and if not for the Romans, who knows what kind of church you'd be going to right now. |
Quote:
Sure you can. something that is both red and green all over has never existed. there has never been a married bachelor. :) Celsus is greatly biased. What's great about him is that his greek smugness is very similar to modern elitist atheists. (Minus the anti-Jew stuff) I think the Christian movement took off because of its prolific writers. Not being married to a single language allowed each community to put the story into their worldview (or sacred canopy as Durkheim puts it). But more importantly it allowed for an exchange of ideas (much like FOF!). Not being bound to elders telling stories or a leader writing down their "conversation" with god freed the religion to grow organically and mature. It also allowed the faith to be many different, even contradictory, things at once, ie Gnostic. however once rulers took over the movement they would only keep the letters/verses/books that legitimized their power and made their interpretation the one and only. that's why i love the first 3 centuries, Christianity was open-sourced |
Quote:
Prove it! Quote:
Yeah, he's biased because he doesn't like Christians. Still, he's as entitled to his opinion about the Christian movement of his time as anybody else is. For all I know, he was spot on. There isn't much else out there that describes it in a negative light and survived, not that I've read anyway. The only reason his still exists is because it was quoted at length in a later positive and equally biased work. I'm not saying he's right in his attacks either because it's impossible to say. It's definitely interesting how many of his arguments carry on today. In fact, when I read Hitchen's 'The Portable Atheist', I was actually shocked by how it's been the exact same arguments being used for and against for centuries and centuries and centuries back in time, long before the wealth of scientific knowledge we have today. Quote:
And probably about as accurate as a wiki article. |
Unlike other religions, Christianity isn't about philosophy; it isn't about improving yourself, achieving "balance," or making yourself "worthy" of heaven, it's about grace. Quite simply, the work of Christ allows us to renew a personal relationship with our creator, God.
For those who look at Christianity as simply an intellectual pursuit, or as a philosophical quandry, you will more than likely be disappointed or underwhelmed. Even the scripture offers, "the wisdom of God is foolishness to men, and the wisdom of men is foolishness to God." But for those of us who have heard the gospel and have chosen to receive grace, for most of us it has been a life-changing event. Now you can think we're crazy, weak-willed, stupidsticious, sheep,...or whatever else floats your boat or makes you feel superior, but for us, we know it is the power of God to help us live a life that is pleasing to Him and to share the good news of reconciliation with God to a world that I don't think too many would argue seems to be sliding ever closer to the brink. Now, if that scares you..., well, BOO! |
Quote:
Not all branches of Christianity share this view. |
Quote:
This is your personal interpretation, many would disagree. Who is right? Quote:
Not meant as a personal slight against you, but to a nonbeliever, this paragraph is empty fluff of the kind found from each and every devout believer of each and every religion, complete with a threat of the impending end of days just about every religion seems to so eagerly await. |
Quote:
I would say that's why most formal denominations of Christianity are on the wane in the Western world "they assume the form and rituals of godliness, but deny the true Power." |
Quote:
As it should. We are commissioned in the New Testament only to preach the gospel with the accompanying signs. It is the Spirt of God that woos mens' hearts and brings them to repentence and salvation, not the preacher or evangelists' clever words. I figured out a long time ago that there is nothing I can do to change a person's heart. All I can do is share the gospel when/if the opportunity presents itself, and pray for that person to receive God's grace. |
Quote:
How does that viewpoint settle with Matthew 7:1? |
The measure we use to judge others, is the measure that will be used to judge us.
Specifically, someone who judges another for an act he himself also commits, will be judged all the more harshly by God. |
And that goes to the heart of all the schisms and various reformations of Christianity over the years, and is why there isn't a 'monolithic' set of beliefs for Christianity, other than Jesus was the son of God. All of the branches and sects have their ways of how to interpret the Bible and progress down the path. Any attempt to say that a specific sets of beliefs represents Christianity as a whole just doesn't reflect the varied landscape.
|
Quote:
Well, the Jesus is the son of God and he died for our sins and was ressurected thing, IS pretty much THE Christian faith...everything else is more or less pissing contests between various denominations. Now if you want to get into heresies like Gnosticism, that was presented as such by the original founders of the various churches in the ancient world, many of whom were original disciples of Christ. |
Quote:
Agreed, I was just pointing out that what you put here: Quote:
isn't a universal view among Christians. That falls under the "pissing contest" as you put it. |
Not so...the "grace" part is the fundamental element of the Christ is God's son, died on the cross for our sins and was ressurected thing.
I would welcome you to explain how it falls under the "pissing contest" category. |
The very concept of Grace is what led to Luther's 95 Thesis. He had a very different view than what Rome had, and took his views to split off and found Lutheranism. Then if you go to Calvinism, predestination was introduced, so no matter what you did, or chose to do, God had already decided your fate, and if you received grace or not. In the Church of Christ, they for the most part do not side with any of the reformation ideas, and prefer to keep things tied directly to their interpretation of the New Testament. Salvation is key to them, and grace is something more not to fall out of than it is to strive for.
Those are just a few examples off the top of my head, but definitely the views on grace were a major reason for the formation of the various Protestant groups of Christianity. |
Quote:
I'm guessing far more preachers at your average suburban church do more preaching of John 4:8 than Luke 19:27. |
Quote:
I think belief via the promise/threat of impending doom might be older than virgin birth stories;) |
Quote:
Well... if we can agree what bachelor means and married means I have a chance. If we can't I'm going to deny Australia exists. Or better yet, I say Australia is just the name of my cat, who is licking himself right now.;) |
Quote:
And hopefully just as false, given the Hebrew word that was translated into "virgin" in Greek in fact simply meant "young woman" - usually the same thing ideally, but no doubt not so much in practice... Yet how often do we still hear about the virgin birth... |
Quote:
I'm sure I could be stubborn and come up with all sorts of definitions of bachelor and marriage... The gay marriage thread on this board is a good example of how even the meaning of that word means a lot of different things to a lot of different folks. Quote:
Ahhh... but see, I *can* prove Australia exists, because I'm standing on her right now. The country, that is. You're cat is probably still OK. ;) |
Quote:
March Hare: Have some wine. (Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea.) Alice: I don't see any wine. March Hare: There isn't any. Alice: Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it. March Hare: It wasn't very civil of you to sit down without being invited |
I just can't believe I used "you're" instead of "your" when I'm always getting on other folks for doing the same. :(
|
Quote:
That isn't really true, but I know what you are trying to say ("You can't prove a negative"). You can not prove something doesn't exist (or any kind of negative claim), unless you can prove a positive claim that negates the possibility of the negative claim being false. IOW, you can prove A doesn't exist by proving a positive claim that makes it impossible for A to exist. In AE's example, you can prove that a married bachelor doesn't exists (negative claim) by proving that "married" and "bachelor" are mutually exclusive (positive claim). Just like someone can not be an atheistic theist; they are mutually exclusive (a provable positive claim that would negate the possibility of an atheistic theist existing). But as far as this thread goes, you are right in that you can not prove Jesus did not exist. At least, AFAIK, there's no positive claim, or set of positive claims, that you could prove that would negate the possibility of Jesus existing. (It's 3am and I'm very tired. I hope I didn't screw up the wording and hope this post made sense. :) ) |
Quote:
Yes, good point, I was trying to be difficult, turns out I was being difficult as well as wrong. ;) Quote:
FWIW, considering I've been so negative this entire thread, I just thought I'd make clear that I have few doubts that there was a Jesus. I find it difficult to believe that something like Christianity can rise from nothing. To be more accurate, what I should have said is that I don't believe in a historical Jesus, or in other words, a Jesus that we can know anything about with any real certainty. It would be hypocritical for me to say he DID exist for certain though. I just think it's most likely that he did. Quote:
Well, you made more sense than me, by making the point I intended to make. I'll blame mine on my 6 day long weekend of non-stop boozing that has unfortunately come to an end today with my first day back at work. :) |
|
Quote:
At the time, the Bible was in limited supply and even then, a good portion of the population couldn't read or write. Christian doctrine was pretty much decided by the whims of Rome, whether it was scriptural or not -- thus we had indulgences, self-flagellation, Christ in large part being supplanted by worship of the Madonna and the saints, etc., etc. Luther went back to original NT scripture, looked at the message of the gospels, and saw how it had been distorted and amended by the Roman church over the years. So you could say that the Reformation was Luther's attempt to move the Church back to its roots in the writings of the NT -- quite simply, we are saved by God's grace through Jesus Christ. Quote:
While I don't agree with a majority of Calvinist thought, you can't say that grace isn't a fundamental element of their belief system...it is perhaps moreso. To a Calvinist, God's grace is ABSOLUTE. He alone decides who will receive His grace (unmerited favor) and who will not, and the individual soul plays no part in that process. Quote:
I'll admit I'm not very familiar with the dogma of the Church of Christ, but again...what you describe is the basic tenant of the Christian faith...salvation comes through God's grace through Jesus Christ. |
Quote:
I would agree...you could add to that a fatalistic world view, "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." |
Quote:
What makes the "Think Green/Global Warming" movement such a success? |
Quote:
Well said, SFL Cat. As the Celsus example illustrated earlier, and as the Gnostics and other controversies described by Paul also illustrate, Christians have banged their heads against the same walls for many generations, trying to explain truth to generations of people that don't define truth by the same standards. It can be discouraging, especially on Internet boards, but be encouraged that you are not alone, and beware getting angry or bitter. You have spoken well. |
Quote:
My problem is, where is the physical evidence for Jesus? There is none and if anybody says the shroud of turin... There's plenty of physical evidence for Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, George Washington, King Tut, etc... I have serious doubts that the jesus of the bible existed, but, conceed that there may have been your average joe named jesus that did exist at the time. There's thousands of people named jesus even now in 2009. Heck, the christians had to use Mithras for designating what day christmas was going to be. Other than making up the stories about jesus in the NT, christians haven't done much on the side of original ideas. If people want to have faith, that's fine with me. I highly encourage people to not confuse faith and fact as being the same thing though. |
Quote:
Problem is that those with faith believe it as fact with no need for the type of evidence you seek. |
Quote:
Well, to be fair, I don't think everyone who has faith can be painted with that brush. Unfortunately, there are plenty that can be painted with that brush though. |
Quote:
Touche! |
I'm coming late to this, but are some people claiming here that there's a similar availability of credible historical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great as there is for Jesus?
|
Quote:
You go ahead and blame it on your 6-day weekend of nonstop boozing and I'll just sit here and be jealous. :) |
Quote:
Well, seeing as how this Jesus fellow is the only person out of those three that supposedly was ressurected from the dead, and walked on water, and performed a whole host of other miracles, I think asking for some kind...well any kind of evidence that he actually existed (let alone did any of these things) is warranted. |
Quote:
Great example, totally the same thing, reverent fear. Socrates had it right(of course) when he said: For if anyone stands in reverence and awe of something, does he not at the same time fear and dread the imputation of wickedness? Which fits nicely with: Hebrews 12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, Philippians 2:12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, |
Quote:
Yes, we believe there is enough evidence to suggest that Julius Ceasar and Alexander the Great did indeed exist. |
Quote:
Yup. And to bring in modern faith-based "gospel"...environmentalism. Quote:
|
Quote:
No. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how historical research is conducted. Literary accounts of historical events (or figures), regardless of their objectivity, are but one part of the historical record. Other primary sources include records of state (which exist for the Greek and Roman empires, as well as a number of empires conquered by the Greeks and Romans), evidence from architecture, and archaeological finds, such as coins and whatnot. The literary primary sources that establish the existence of figures such as Julius and Augustus Caesar and Alexander the Great are corroborated by other primary sources such as those listed above. No such corroboration exists for Jesus. Further, the literary primary sources for the Caesars and Alexander the Great can, in many cases, be established as contemporary (a key requirement for "primary source" status) considerably more readily than those purporting to be primary source evidence for Jesus. This is not to say that Jesus didn't exist. It's just not correct to say that as much historical evidence exists for Jesus as it does for other major figures of the ancient world. |
Very well said flere.
|
Quote:
To be fair, Alexander the Great could easily order his historians to write about him. Jesus was basically hiding from authorities until captured and executed. I wouldn't want to be the one Chronicling that. Still, despite the persectution, the information that existed at the time regarding Jesus was enough to persuade even his captors (The entire Roman Empire) to fully accept Christianity by the end of the 3rd century AD. I would assume most of that information was a bit more perishable, that's fair to state as well. |
Quote:
The Roman Empire 'accepted' christianity because Theodosius I created a law in 380AD making christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. You going to argue with the emperor? Sounds like not much a of choice was given to the citizens of the empire to me. |
Quote:
It was the rise of Christianity and the beginnings of a powerful church, not Theodosius which made Theodosius create the law. I'm not sure he was all that big of a religious guy actually, being excommunicated at one point (which back then may have been like handing out speeding tickets today for all we know). EDIT: The Roman Empire was losing power by that time anyway, so any 'forced' conversion on his part could've caused a faster collapse of the empire. I'm fairly convinced this was the will of the people, not the pope. |
Quote:
See, Alexander the Great didn't particularily NEED to order people to write about him. No doubt he did, but even if he hadn't people would have written about him because of his importance and his deeds. He was a pretty big character in his day. I don't think anyone would argue that. Lots of people throughout history have achieved similar things to what Alexander the Great did, and we know about them because of the impact they had on the people around them, who felt fit to chronicle it. No one in history, excluding other religious figures, has achieved anything as spectacular as Jesus of the NT. Yet no contemporaries chronicled it, or at least, not enough to have them come down to us through the centuries? There is not a single other historical person who would have his deeds considered fact on such flimsy evidence, especially given their, well, "miracle" nature. Quote:
Again, that shows nothing, given that lots of cultures have accepted lots of religions over the history of mankind. |
Quote:
Ok, I realized I'm using Roman Empire in place of the Roman Republic which was on its way out at the time of Theodosius. The Roman Empire lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. There was the Edict of Tolerance by Constantine I in 313AD that opened the door to christianity becoming the 'state' religion. So, there seems to have been a build up to christianity taking over. I'll give in to there being a good possibility that it was indeed the will of the people that led to Theodosius' making it the state religion. I just don't know enough about the overall feelings of the Roman populace at the time though to be 100% sure. But, going back to the OP, I don't think it would have been possible for christianity to even get to that point, without it borrowing from many of the pre christian religions to appeal to a wider audience. |
I'd like to know how much evidence is needed to believe in Jesus without feeling like a dolt, k thanx.
|
Quote:
Apparently next to zero for a lot of people ;) |
Quote:
Neither do I. From more recent times in other countries and with other religions I've read it happening both ways - from the top down, and from the bottom up. And even when coming from the top down, it's not always enforced as the "control tool" I think sometimes religion is made out to be, as in some of the cases at least I think there is a good amount of evidence that the folks at the top were actually quite devout. Quote:
I think it's nearly impossible to argue otherwise, given the wealth of evidence. |
Quote:
Guess it's a wrong thing to believe in hope, then. After all, we can't see hope or prove that hope even exists. So, I guess there's just no such thing as hope. |
Quote:
The best scholar today on all this is Peter Brown. In his book "Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity" he argues the weak central government allowed for local leaders to be persuaded all sorts of" new philosophers." This allowed Christianity to grow politically and religiously. Eventually monks become the new philosopher. On the other end, the message from these elite Christians was presented in a simple populist way (love the poor for example) which Brown argues was a "masterstroke" for the emerging religion. soon bishops had the devotion of the lower class and thus the attention of the ruling class. they became the spiritual and political leaders of the most powerful (and essential) cities of the Empire. So yes, the Empire did not have much choice, it was more or less after the fact. |
Quote:
Well, hope doesn't really exist outside of your head. It's not a tangible object. |
Quote:
I know what you are getting at and I'm not falling for it. :) |
Quote:
Why waste time on it then. Let's just throw it out because it's not tangible. |
Quote:
And that is... |
Quote:
Because it's a natural human emotion, just like love, hate, fear, etc. and it serves a purpose. And yes, so does religion of course, but that also makes claims to being tangible. |
Quote:
Religion itself is not tangible though, so why even argue about it? |
Quote:
Because its believers impact and potentially threaten my life nearly every single day? |
Quote:
And who will impact and potentially threaten your life every day once religion is squashed? |
Quote:
It's circular logic (if that's the correct term I'm thinking of). Well, if we can't see, touch, smell or taste hope, love, compasion, etc...but, we know they exist, then how can we say that god doesn't exist since you can apply the same (for the lack of a better word) feelings to god. So, therefor, god must exist since hope and the other feelings humans have exist. (Not directed at you RKG) Creationists love to play that game as if it gives some sort of special validity to what they believe in. Usually that game is followed by the 'What if?' game that Ray Comfort loves to play. |
Quote:
Who knows. If that does happen, I'm sure you'll see me on these forums arguing about that as well. :) |
Quote:
Guns don't kill people, I kill people. = Religion doesn't hurt people, people who use religion for their own selfish gains hurt people. |
Quote:
Yet, but that's also the same circular knowledge that you explore in your arguments. If something can't be seen, touched, smell, or tasted, then how can we know that god does exist. |
Quote:
Which is why, as an atheist, wants it kept completely out of public education and legislation and also why, I feel that religions in america should not be tax exempt. |
Quote:
Because you can't prove a negative. All of my arguments are based on scientific findings and emperical evidence and because of that evidence, it's not looking good for the existence of god. |
When push comes to shove, I suppose there is as much "historical" evidence to support the existence of Jesus as there is for the founders of the world's other major religions: i.e. the Buddha, Confuscius, Moses, and even the prophet Muhammad -- which is to say, outside of religious holy writings and associated texts, very little.
I do think it is a little unfair for some of you to expect a Jew who spent his early life in Roman occupied Israel's equivalent to the sticks to get the same scholarly attention (such as it was in those days) as someone like Julius Caesar or Alexander. I'm sure a lot of us would like to think that we're making a lasting mark in this world, but the fact is, unless we become a major world leader or achieve something globally noteworthy, 100 years from now, we'll be mouldering in the grave completely forgotten by everyone except, perhaps, our decendants. That said, it really doesn't matter if countless volumes were written about Christ by outside historians who confirmed that, yes, He was real guy who wandered about rural Judaea preaching and teaching the unwashed masses. The real rub is what Christians believe about Him: that He is God incarnate, God in the flesh, and that through His work on the cross, we're saved by God's grace. Even if we could conclusively point and say: Seeeee, there he is in hiistoreeee!!! The unbeliever would reply: Yeah, there's that crazy Jew who had delusions of godhood. Where'd you guys hide the body when you stole it from the tomb? |
Quote:
Non sequitur. Religion hurts people in far subtler ways than suicide bombers or guns. The hurt doesn't always stem from people using it for their own selfish gains. It stems from people following a 2,000 year old book (in the case of Christianity) and its subsequent reinterpretations to the letter. Regardless, this says nothing at all about the truthfullness of religion, or Christianity in particular, which is what this thread is about. If religion's sole saving grace is that it can make some people happy, why the need of gods and heavens and an afterlife? Why not follow one of the strains of, say, Buddhism that doesn't need all that extra supernatural stuff, but just instructs you to be a decent human being? |
Quote:
So what you are saying is that God didn't create war, we did. God didn't create genocide, we did. God didn't create pain and suffering, we did. God didn't create anything because God doesn't exist. Yet, now you are saying that if we just get rid of this rediculous "belief" of God, that everything will be okay? You realize you haven't gotten to the root problem, yet, right? |
Quote:
Again, you're blaming religion for the faults of teachers/parents and legislators who use their own personal beliefs inapposite of yours. As Dutch brings up, if religion did not exist or was banned, we could just plug in other nouns for "religions" in that above quote and still be accurate. Quote:
Science once proved that the world was flat, too. Also, I guess it was incorrect to think that alien life forms exist simply b/c they have not been proven yet. |
Quote:
History has seen many generals and military heroes. History has not seen many folks raising other folks from the dead. Can you imagine the kind of scene that would have created? You'd have thousands of people migrating to whever Jesus was, pleading that their loved one is brought back from the dead. Quote:
Well, if I start raising people from the dead, I'm thinking I might get at least an entry in the printed copy of wikipedia that they are sending to 3rd world countries... Quote:
Yeah, but is that convincing? Why do Christians believe with such certainty that it's true, after you admit that there is no more evidence of it having happened than of Zeus having thrown down lightning bolts from the sky? Why do people of different faiths think it's nonsense and instead worship different gods, that you in turn think are nonsense? What if you happened to be born in India rather than a Christian country? Quote:
If someone found a contemporary document that said Jesus existed, all that would mean is that it's more likely he did exist. One single piece of evidence might be, out of neccessity, barely enough to suggest something happened in history, but certainly not to prove something of the magnitude written about in the NT/OT/whatever. |
Quote:
I'm not really saying we created it either, because it exists in the animal world too, they just don't have the means to wage any of it quite like we can. Quote:
No, I'm not saying this at all. Please show me where I did. You are drawing your own conclusions from what I wrote. I'm not naive enough to think that all the world's troubles are caused by religion, or that eliminating it will bring upon world peace. Of course not. What I am saying though is that religion, while perhaps helpful to some individuals, is harmful to the whole. What would the world be like without it? I don't know. We've seen what it's like when it has too much power however, and it's not a pleasant place. I'd quite like to see what happened entirely without it. |
Quote:
I was very specific on what my main problems were with religion. Keep it out of schools, keep it out of legislation and lose the tax exempt status. I never said get rid of religion. There's a whole host of social problems here in america. All social problems are started by people. However, it takes an educated society to see what is BS and what is not. It's not as simple as democrat vs. republican or ford vs. chevy. Quote:
The dogma of the church said it was flat, so it was flat. We all know what happened to Galileo when he opposed the churches 'scientists'. Heck, even the ancient Greeks said the earth was round. As for aliens, if you want to use Drake's Equation, then I guess in way you could say yes. However, as much as I would like to think that there are aliens (any kind from single celled organisms all the way to sentient life forms) there is ZERO emperical evidence that they exist. |
Quote:
Yes, humans will still be humans. Though how can we know things wouldn't be better. Though again, this doesn't address whether any religion or its superstitions are TRUE, which to me at least is a pretty fundamental point to this whole debate. Quote:
Bad science, maybe. Since then, it's shown us that it isn't, all while improving all of our lives dramatically in some cases, or hurting it in others. I'll never understand why it always needs to turn in to religion vs science, either. Religion isn't a faith based belief system. It's something we all see the TANGIBLE effects of every day, and have all seen it progress throughout our lives. It's also helped men do some terrible things. It's apples and oranges however. Quote:
It's incorrect to think they DO exist, it's not incorrect to think they MAY exist. |
Although religion has helped mankind do some "terrible" things, it has also helped mankind do some wonderful things as well. If you're going to give credit for the bad, you must give credit for the good as well.
Actually, I think that perhaps some of the most terrible things religion has contributed to have been reinforcements of societal norms, albeit some taken to the nth degree. I'm not even sure that the elmination of religions would necessarily be a good thing. Sometimes it's better to be happy in ignorance than be miserable in understanding. Do you really want to know what's in a hot dog or do you just want to enjoy it? Do you want to know about the leper who used the public bathroom right before you? |
Given some of the responses on this thread (dunno who said what, have lost track), I am convinced that arguing for the truth of Jesus' existence will ultimately convince no one, even if I used sound, reasonable argument backed with scholarly attribution - for our worldviews are so foundationally different, that even plain facts are seen through too different of lenses to hope for significant agreement.
But I would like to state, for the record, that I disagree wholeheartedly, and believe it to be plain regardless of a person's worldview, with two assertions I've read in this thread: 1. The falsehood of the oft-repeated refrain that there were no contemporaries that wrote of Jesus. Paul was an adult alive at the time of Jesus and likely about the same age, John was a teenager at the youngest, Matthew, and Luke were all contemporaries of Jesus who wrote about him. They all were either eyewitnesses to his life and death or dealt directly with other eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and death. True, the first of their writings didn't appear until about 25 years after Jesus death (Paul's being the first, written approx. 55 AD to 65 AD, with Jesus' death approximated at 30 AD), but these men WERE contemporaries. 2. The historically ignorant at best, hopelessly prejudiced at worst assertion that religion is and has been a harmful influence on society. Particularly, the positive influence of Christianity on Western Civ is abundant. From the abolition of slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice to the spread of democracy, women's rights, the valuation of human life, the establishment of hospitals and schools, the foundations of the Euro-American rule of law, the logical roots of the scientific method as we know it, etc. etc. all owe their existence to the principles of Christianity at work in Western Civilization. Now, I am keenly aware of the abuses that have come with religion - from the Crusades to the Inquisition - but to assert that religion is a net minus on history?? Again, either hopelessly ignorant - particularly of American history - or unjustifiably selective in historical interpretation. Now, with a thoroughly ingrained faith in the value of a secular humanist worldview, all religion of today would appear foolish, regressive, and even potentially dangerous. Its abolition or at least removal from the public and political sphere would be seen as valuable, and I don't begrudge my peers who adhere to that worldview from seeing religion as a net negative in the current times. But historically? My secularist friends owe their lives and their freedoms to the faith of their fathers. I could belabour the point, ask how many of us were born in Catholic hospitals or make some other clever argument, but I wonder if any of it would even have effect. I will contend that to the honest mind, my assertion is as self-evident as the truths our forefathers held, believing as they did that all our rights were endowed to man by his creator. Of course, without their faith, our forefathers wouldn't have believed any of that crap, and America would look radically different than it does today. |
Quote:
I only know of two instances in the NT where Jesus raised people from the dead: Quote:
Quote:
As you can see, no multitudes of thousands there to witness the events, and the reaction (especially in the case of Lazarus) was mixed. The miracle with Lazarus only hastened the plans by the Jewish religious leaders to seize Jesus and put him to death. Quote:
With all the appropriate disclaimers, I'm sure. It is "claimed" this person raised someone from the dead. There is no conclusive evidence, other than eyewitness accounts of fanatical followers, most of whom probably see UFO's and are abducted by aliens in their spare time. :) Quote:
That goes to a personal issue of faith...of God touching your life in such a way that you have an assurance that He is indeed there and that His Spirit is with you. Not something that can be explained, only experienced. Quote:
I would say because a great majority of people simply participate in the religion they grow up with. Most have never heard the gospel. In fact, it amazes me the number of people in this country I've met (particularly young people) who have never heard about Jesus outside of being just another swear word. |
Dola...good stuff revrew!
|
Quote:
There were four people raised from the dead; Jairus' daughter, Jesus himself, Lazarus, and the son of the widow at Nain. Quote:
Yeah, as according to the NT. And as has hopefully been made clear in this thread and in scholarly research, the NT is not a contemporary source. What I'm saying is that if something like this occured in real life, I would expect it to create some major waves. I'd expect at the very least everyone directly near these events to immediately run to Jesus to bring their dead loved ones back to life as well. Quote:
OK then. I guess he just ignored me! Off to hell I go, thanks baby Jesus! :) Quote:
Without question. So it comes down to the dumb luck of being born in the right place at the right time then to get in to heaven or whatever afterlife the correct religion has in store for us. Quote:
Honestly, if there was anyone in the United States, outside of some kid who grew up in some kind of strange sect or locked in a closet, who didn't know who Jesus was, I'd be surprised. |
Quote:
I'm sorry but what you write here is contradicted by the majority of biblical historians, both regarding the dating of the gospels, and the order in which they were written. I stand by the earlier statement that there is zero contemporary evidence that exists for anything in the gospels. And even if I were to allow that you were correct in dating the gospels (which I certainly don't ;) ), that still doesn't explain the mysterious lack of any other contemporary evidence. One source would not be sufficient to explain something as miraculous as the miracles of the NT. Quote:
I'd say it speaks volumes that many of the advances you describe came about in no small part due to the separation of church and state, and the added freedom that gave to the realm of science. American history, from what I've read of it at least, is shaped in no small part by the amount of religious refugees that came to the US to escape persecution back home. I disagree very strongly on most of your points in this paragraph actually, for many reasons outside of just my negative attitude towards religion. Quote:
Obviously I disagree with the vast majority of this as well, perhaps even the last sentence. That is far harder to say with any certainty, given it hasn't really happened anywhere at any time. edit: grrrr... the wysiwyg editor is annoying at times. |
Quote:
Of course. But what good things has it done that could not have been done by secular people or secular organisations? Quote:
Yes, no question about that either. Though religion itself has given people another reason to hate each other, and perhaps an even stronger one than even race, especially in the Western world. The hatred of Middle Easterns by a good many Westerners has less to do with which particular country they are from than it does the fact that they are Muslims. Quote:
This is probably the most interesting point about religion to me. Is ignorance bliss, or is reality, no matter how harsh or cruel it may seem, better? To slighlty rephrase what I wrote in one of my posts above, to the average individual I think ignorance may be bliss, but to humanity as a whole I believe reality is preferable. In nearly all matters of individuals vs the whole, religious or otherwise, I tend to side with the whole as that's just the way I'm wired. I think there is more to be gained as a species from casting aside primitive superstitions than there is to hold on to them. I don't expect it to ever happen though. |
Quote:
The other piece to it is that if you were involved in a crime as an eyewitness and the police took a statement from you, I would guess that what you saw wasn't necessarily a 100% account of what happened simply because you didn't see everything and between the time the incident occurred and when you wrote your statement you would've forgotten the details. |
[quote=Raiders Army;1992683]Something that I've wondered about is why did it take everyone so long to write down what happened? I mean, if you truly believed that the son of God walked among you, wouldn't you have written a book about it right away? Look at everyone today who writes a book and tries to capitalize on their 15 minutes (or longer in some cases).
[quote] Wouldn't there have been a good chance they would have been killed and their works gotten rid of? |
Quote:
Quote:
To eat the apple or not eat the apple, eh? :) I think most people would prefer the blue pill as opposed to the red pill simply because their minds could not handle not having a higher being to lean on in times of stress. The problem with Atheism is that it does not provide an acceptable alternative to religious folk nor does it provide any easy answers that religion provides. Quote:
Religion isn't holding back science either. I think people will always believe in something, whether it's an unprovable God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. *shrug* |
Quote:
I honestly don't know. I was asking the question. :) Did something happen in the intervening years? |
Quote:
I'm actually not sure and am curious too. I'm still learning about all of the history of everything myself. |
Quote:
They all thought Christ was coming right back. The end days were going to be in their lifetime so why write something down. |
Quote:
Not to nitpick (OK, yes to nitpick), but there are plenty of chroniclers in parts of the world not conquered by Alexander, Julius or Augustus who wrote about them. In fact, a key part of examining contemporary chroniclers as primary sources is to see if you can get two with offsetting biases. This is kind of like the OJ vs. Phil Spector debate. :D In their time, people like Alexander the Great, and Julius and Augustus Caesar were considerably better known than Jesus. One of the results of this is that there's considerably more historical evidence in the form of primary sources about them, than Jesus. The main weakness in the claim of Jesus as a historical figure is that such a claim relies almost wholly on what are effectively secondary sources. You see the "problem" of later notoriety coloring the view of primary/secondary sources quite often in historical research. The fact that Jesus (historical figure or not) had considerably more influence later on, and is much better known now, doesn't change the fact that primary evidence for his existence (using historical standards) is sparse. Let's take another example. We know that Jeanne d'Arc was a real person. Her presence at the Siege of Orleans, and subsequent battles, is well recorded by a number of chroniclers from both sides as well as independent observers. Plus, evidence of her is recorded in state records of England, France and Burgundy. Her later notoriety, however, is based on events that have very little, if any, evidence from primary contemporary records, but are well documented in secondary, later, sources. Thus we have the situation where the Duke of Burgundy was certainly better known at the time and more influential in the outcomes later attributed to Jeanne d'Arc, but popular recollection, aided by these secondary sources, remembers it differently. |
Quote:
For what it's worth, I don't think you need to believe that Jesus was a historical figure to believe in Jesus. If you must be able to believe that Jesus was a historical figure to believe in Jesus (or, generally, Christianity) then just believe that the secondary sources are accurate and you'll be just fine. |
Quote:
That's fine, but to return to your previous claim, the gospels, as a historical record, simply do not "stack up" as well as the historical record of other major historical figures at the time (i.e. the Caesars, Alexander the Great, etc...). Further, their value as a historical record is compromised somewhat by a lack of counterbalancing sources to their quite obvious (sorry) propaganda. Do the gospels have value as historical evidence? Absolutely. Do they help prove the assertion that Jesus was an actual person to the same extent that other historical evidence proves the assertions that Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and Alexander the Great were actual people? No. Quote:
Two issues with this. First, at the very least what you're describing would be more correctly termed the "Judeo-Christian" influence on Western society. Secondly, many of the advances you list also had significant inputs from the cultures of the Far East and even the Muslim world. Are we to forget that the practice of accurate mathematics was largely kept alive in what became the "muslim world" while the Christian world sank into the dark ages? To say nothing of basic scientific precepts. |
Quote:
It's ironic (and sad) that the men (and women) who advanced Western civilization in, say, the 17th through 19th centuries, while certainly "men of faith", often pursued science with the kind of zeal that would have 21st century religious fundamentalists condemn them. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.