Why Jesus is Lord

jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Why Jesus is Lord

Historical Textual Evidence for Jesus’ Existence

There are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus’ death which mention his existence and record many events of his life.

  1. 9 Traditional New Testament Authors
    1. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.
  2. 20 Early Christian Writers Outside the New Testament
    1. Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum.
  3. 4 Heretical Writings
    1. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection.
  4. 9 Secular Sources
    1. Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.

Historical Textual Evidence for Tiberius Caesar’s Existence

Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor who reigned during Jesus’ ministry, has 10 authors who mention his existence within 150 years of his life.  These include: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Valerius Maximum, and Luke.  If one removes Luke, since he is a New Testament source, there are 9 secular non-Christian sources.  This means that there are just as many non-Christian sources for Jesus’ existence as there are for Tiberius Caesar’s!  And, to compare, the total number of sources between Jesus and Tiberius Caesar are 42:10. Therefore, there are over four times as many sources for Jesus’ life and deeds than for Tiberius Caesar’s.

If one is going to doubt the existence of Jesus, one must also reject the existence of Tiberius Caesar.

Equally as intellectually impaired are those that claim Christianity is based on pagan mythology. 

First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines.  All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4).  Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ.  So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection.  In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing.

There will undoubtedly be similarities in religious themes given the agrarian culture.  Remember, an agriculturally based society, as was the people of the ancient Mediterranean area, will undoubtedly develop theological themes based upon observable events, i.e., the life, death, and seeming resurrection of life found in crops, in cattle, and in human life.  It would only be natural for similar themes to unfold since they are observed in nature and since people created gods related to nature.  But, any reading of the Old Testament results in observing the intrusion of God into Jewish history as is recorded in miracles and prophetic utterances.  Add to that the incredible archaeological evidence verifying Old Testament cities and events and you have a document based on historical fact instead of mythical fabrication.  Furthermore, it is from these Old Testament writings that the New Testament themes were developed.

Following is a chart demonstrating some of the New Testament themes found in the Old Testament.

Theme Old Testament
Reference
New Testament
fulfilled in Jesus
Ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God Ps. 110:1 Matt 26:64; Acts 7:55-60; Eph. 1:20
Atonement by blood Lev. 17:11 Heb. 9:22
Begotten Son, Jesus is Psalm 2:7 Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5
Crucifixion Psalm 22:11-18; Zech. 12:10 Luke 23:33-38
Eternal Son Micah 5:1-2; Psalm 2:7 Heb. 1:5; 5:5
God among His people Isaiah 9:6; 40:3 John 1:1,14; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Matt. 3:3
Incarnation of God 1)Ex 3:14; 2)Ps. 45:6 Isaiah 9:6; Zech. 12:10 1)John 8:58; 1:1,14; 2)Heb. 1:8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3
Only Begotten Son Gen. 22:2.  See Typology John 3:16; Heb. 11:7
Resurrection of Christ Psalm 16:9-10; 49:15; Is. 26:19 John 2:19-21
Return of Christ Zech. 14:1-5; Mic. 1:3-4 Matt. 16:27-28; Acts 1:11; 3:20
Sin offering Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:3 Rom. 8:3; Heb. 10:18; 13:11
Son of God Psalm 2:7 John 5:18
Substitutionary Atonement Isaiah 53:6-12; Lev. 6:4-10,21 Matt. 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18;
Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14 Matt. 1:25

As you can see, there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus.  If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are!  Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament.  Think about it, the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah.

Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions.  It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures concerning the Messiah.  Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught:  truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc.  Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism?  It doesn't make sense.

 

The alleged pagan parallels to Jesus’ resurrection are (1) unclear, (2) have late testimony that postdates Christianity, (3) may not be referring to an actual resurrection, (4) lack historical evidence, (5) misunderstand the Jewish influence on early Christianity, and (6) fail to explain the positive evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.

Unclear Parallels

The first problem is that the accounts of dying and rising gods in other religions are unclear.  Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, records some of these "parallels" in an attempt to convince the Roman emperor that the Christian's teachings were not that dissimilar from other Roman religions which were favored by the empire.  Justin appealed to various examples, including Aesculapius who was struck by lightning and ascended to heaven, Baccus and Hercules and a few other sons who rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus after having died violent deaths, Ariadne who was “set among the stars,” and finally the cremation of the emperor Augustus in which someone claimed that he saw Augustus’s spirit ascend towards heaven.3  However, Justin’s parallels are extremely unclear.  As Habermas and Licona note, “If we were to consider these as parallels to Jesus’ resurrection, we would also have to consider every ghost story."

Late Testimony: After Christianity

Second, the first clear dying and rising god parallel to the resurrection story of Jesus occurs at least 100 years after the reports of Jesus’ resurrection.  For example, the earliest versions of the death and resurrection of Adonis appeared after A.D. 150.  The accounts of Attis, the Phyrgian god of vegetation who was responsible for the death and rebirth of plant life, are not until the 3rd century A.D. (200 A.D.) or later.  Therefore, the Christians did not follow a genre of “dying and rising gods” since such parallels did not exist during their time period.

Questionable if Referring to a Resurrection

Third, it is questionable if the pre-Jesus pagan resurrection accounts are actually referring to a resurrection.  In the accounts of Marduk there is no clear death or resurrection mentioned.  Adonis, in the earliest visions, contains no death or resurrection reports.  His first death and resurrection accounts do not occur until after A.D. 150.  Osiris has conflicting accounts.  Some accounts say that he is assigned to the underworld and others refer to him as the “sun.”  However, there are no accounts or claims that Osiris rose from the dead.

The only account of a god who survived death that predates Christianity is found in Osiris.  However, as mentioned above, there are several versions of his story.  In one, he is killed by his brother, cut into fourteen pieces, and scattered in Egypt.  The goddess Isis then collects his parts and bring him back to life, but she was only able to find thirteen parts.  Furthermore, it is questionable whether Osiris was brought back to life on earth or seen by others like Jesus.  Osiris descends and was given status of the underworld as god of the mummies.  Interestingly, it is more of a zombification rather than a resurrection! Finally, the hero in the story is not Osiris, but Isis or Horus, their son.  This is extremely different from Jesus who is the heroic risen prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven (Acts 1:1-11).

Lack of Historical Evidence

Fourth, the accounts of dying and rising gods in other religions lack historical evidence, and can be accounted for by opposing theories such as legendary embellishment or lack of historicity.  Interestingly, these dying and rising vegetation gods like Osiris and Adonis are not real people in history like Jesus (see: Did Jesus ever exist?).  Furthermore, they are not attested by multiple sources, and the first available manuscript is far removed from the event that is described.  For example, The Life of Apollonius by Philostratus, postdates Jesus by 200 years and is thought to be a “product of conscious reaction against Christianity.”  Therefore, these pagan parallels are late and not around the time when eyewitnesses could be questioned.

Jewish not Pagan Ideas

Fifth, early Christianity was birthed in a Jewish cultural context.  The early Christians, in fact, worshiped in the Jewish temple (i.e. Acts 2:46; 5:42) and believed that Christ's resurrection fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (1 Cor. 15:3-4).  In light of this, these Jewish Christians believed in a physical resurrection which was a view that was not accepted by the Greco-Roman culture who ridiculed such an idea (Acts 17:31-32).  Therefore, it is unlikely that these Jewish Christians would adopt pagan mythology.

Positive Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

Sixth, and finally, the idea of the resurrection story being borrowed from pagan religions is unconvincing for several reasons since it does not explain the empty tomb, the early belief of the disciples in the resurrection of Jesus due to eyewitness testimony, the transformation of the disciples, the conversion of Paul, and the conversion of James.

First, the empty tomb of Jesus contains strong historical corroboration due to the unreasonableness of the disciples to preach an empty tomb in Jerusalem when the critics of Christianity could have just uncovered the tomb, the fact that early polemics between Christians and Jews presuppose the empty tomb, and finally, the fact that women who were not regarded highly by ancient society are the chief witnesses of the empty tomb!   If the resurrection story of Jesus was borrowed from pagan mythology, then there would be no need for an empty tomb.

Second, we have extremely early testimony to the disciples’ belief that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.  A pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 has been dated by critical scholars to the early 30’s A.D.  This does not allow enough time for legend to embellish the core story of the text.  In fact, the events upon which the creed is based points right back to the early 30's, possibly only a year or even months from the resurrection event itself.  This would indicate that there really is no significant gap in time for legendary embellishments to explain the disciple’s core belief in the resurrection.

The early nature of the resurrection appearance accounts points to at least one, and possibly multiple, eyewitness accounts.  At least Paul in A.D. 55 mentions his own eyewitness resurrection account (1 Cor. 15:8).  In fact, the atheistic historian Michael Martin states that Paul is the only eyewitness that we have of the resurrection.   It is also quite possible that the 1 Cor. 15:3-8 creed also contains eyewitness material from the twelve, all of the apostles, Peter, James, 500, etc.

Third, the disciples were radically transformed from despairing doubters to persevering proclaimers of the gospel.  Is it really realistic to think that a pagan resurrection story is going to inspire pious Jews to adopt pagan ideology, change their worship from Saturday to Sunday, radically alter their views about their Messiah, change from despair about their dead Messiah, and then be willing to die for their faith and start proclaiming this “gospel” with conviction to hostile monotheistic audiences?

Fourth, Paul converted to Christianity as a result of what he claims is an eyewitness appearance of the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:8), endured much persecution (2 Cor. 11:23-28; Phil. 1:21-23; Acts 14:19; 16:19-24), and was willing to die for his faith.  Is it really reasonable to believe that he became a Christian due to adopting pagan mythology and would be willing to die for this belief?  As an educated Pharisee, he would have seen through the unhistorical claims of the pagan mythological parallels.

Fifth, James, the brother of Jesus, was also converted to Christianity as a result of an appearance of the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:7) and was willing to die for his faith (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:200; Hegesippus in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History 2:23; and Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History 2:1, 23).  Before this appearance, he was a skeptic and did not believe that his brother was the Messiah (Mk. 3:21; Jn. 7:5).  Like Paul, it is extremely improbable, that as a pious Jew, these pagan parallels would have motivated him to believe in Jesus and be willing to die for his faith.

Think about this, only one of the original disciples died of old age.  Judas committed suicide immediately after betraying Jesus.  All the rest were martyred.  Slowly, painfully killed.  All they had to do to prevent this was simple, renounce Jesus.  Just say they were lying.  Or even say that maybe they were mistaken, and all of the miracles they saw were illusions or tricks.  But they didn't.  Tell me this, what would it take for you to give your life in a slow, agonizing, torturous manner?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:     

jackspell wrote:

 

     What logical refutation can be given to  to discredit the eyewitness accounts of 100000 people?

                                                  

 

                                                    Oh, so you accept it as fact, then ?  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Jewish folks

jackspell wrote:

Jews despised pagan myths. Its impoosible they would base there beliefs on one.

 

despised other people's pagan myths. Pagan is a Roman word that means rural/backward. So-called pagan mythology is virtually identical to jewish mythology.

A hero comes from heaven as a man to give his life to save the world from the forces of evil. 

How very droll. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4562
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:I don't know

jackspell wrote:

I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you.  These men were not indoctrinated as young children to believe anything about Christianity.  They weren't following Jesus because some priest put a guilt trip on them.  They didn't stand with Jesus because it was cool or it was gonna make them rich.  They willingly suffered terrible deaths for refusing to renounce Jesus based on what they experienced the,selves.  So, tell me what would possess s11 sane people to do that?

 

Sane? I don't know that they were sane, but cult followers willing to suffer terrible hardships or even kill themselves is not unheard of even in modern times. If getting people to do batshit crazy things and suffer in your name. Google Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple or Solar Temple or Heavens Gate, all modern examples of people who did batshit crazy things, suffered and ultimately killed themselves because a person told them to. So Jesus also had some batshit crazy followers, that just proves he had whatever charisma it takes to get losers to believe you are god. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
many people throughout history have left everything to follow religion, from buddha...

The buddha you are speaking of left a religion because he saw how the chaste system was phony. It was used to keep people under control.

He rejected the sacrifices gods and the gods themselves as he knew they were a waste of time.

Yes but he was also born as a prince, into wealth. He left that all behind.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Oh and

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Oh and one other thing. I don't debate faith because it isn't testable or observable. It's an opinion. If it was factual it wouldn't be called faith.

 

 

So I take it you refrain from Darwinian Evolution debates as well?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I am amused

Vastet wrote:
I am amused that jackspell has no response.

 

I am amused that your picture portrays you as an active "Trench Coat Mafia" member.  Shot up any schools lately?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:     

jackspell wrote:

 

     What logical refutation can be given to  to discredit the eyewitness accounts of 100000 people?

                                                  

 

                                                   

 

                     Still waiting for a definitive answer from you.  Do you believe the Virgin Maryactually put on a magic show in front of thousands of people ? 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Oh and one other thing. I don't debate faith because it isn't testable or observable. It's an opinion. If it was factual it wouldn't be called faith.

 

 

So I take it you refrain from Darwinian Evolution debates as well?

I only refrain from debating against creationists who neither know the position they attack nor the position they espouse. DBB's mileage may vary.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3188
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Oh and one other thing. I don't debate faith because it isn't testable or observable. It's an opinion. If it was factual it wouldn't be called faith.

 

 

So I take it you refrain from Darwinian Evolution debates as well?

Depends on the specifics of the subject at hand. Please clarify.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3188
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

latincanuck wrote:
many people throughout history have left everything to follow religion, from buddha...

The buddha you are speaking of left a religion because he saw how the chaste system was phony. It was used to keep people under control.

He rejected the sacrifices gods and the gods themselves as he knew they were a waste of time.

Yes but he was also born as a prince, into wealth. He left that all behind.

True, or as the story goes.

I have a four part disc set on the life of buddha done ten years ago by a french production company. They took five years to travel around India and SE Asia following various paths of siddhartha. They found several coins dated at the time he was supposed to be alive and they were tribute coins to him from the kings who like what he preached. Apparently they would invite him to stay with him as long as possible. Sort of like a "court wise man".

Funny thing about his travels, which Brian37 will give me shit for saying this, but they have various written documents from the court scribes at that time who wrote down conversations between the king and siddhartha. It's more than can be said about jesus or even mohammed for there given "life stories".

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Well that's it, there are

Well that's it, there are outside documents to support his existence, however there are no documents outside of holy books written by his followers regarding any supernatural events, like (wait for it).....his meditation under the tree and the devil Mara trying to dissuade him from his path to enlightenment......kinda sounds like another story that gets told 600 years later in the middle east in which a devil tempts another being.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3188
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Well

latincanuck wrote:

Well that's it, there are outside documents to support his existence, however there are no documents outside of holy books written by his followers regarding any supernatural events, like (wait for it).....his meditation under the tree and the devil Mara trying to dissuade him from his path to enlightenment......kinda sounds like another story that gets told 600 years later in the middle east in which a devil tempts another being.

Specifically the story of him sitting under the Bodhi tree is a symbolic story. If you listen to buddhist monks who teach the philosophy they will tell you that while he might have actually sat under the tree and meditated until he was able to get rid of the ego, Mara didn't actually send troops to attack him. It was his ego fighting him mentally. There are other stories about "him" which are so unbelievable that they make jesus myths look possible. Like when he was born he took seven steps in each direction then said, "In heaven above and on earth below, I am the most honored one. I shall dispel the suffering that fills the world."

When I heard this I laughed my ass off. It's so ridiculous that it is completely stupid.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Well that's it, there are outside documents to support his existence, however there are no documents outside of holy books written by his followers regarding any supernatural events, like (wait for it).....his meditation under the tree and the devil Mara trying to dissuade him from his path to enlightenment......kinda sounds like another story that gets told 600 years later in the middle east in which a devil tempts another being.

Specifically the story of him sitting under the Bodhi tree is a symbolic story. If you listen to buddhist monks who teach the philosophy they will tell you that while he might have actually sat under the tree and meditated until he was able to get rid of the ego, Mara didn't actually send troops to attack him. It was his ego fighting him mentally. There are other stories about "him" which are so unbelievable that they make jesus myths look possible. Like when he was born he took seven steps in each direction then said, "In heaven above and on earth below, I am the most honored one. I shall dispel the suffering that fills the world."

When I heard this I laughed my ass off. It's so ridiculous that it is completely stupid.

Or of course and that's it, but in many aspects they don't claim the most absurd parts as literal truth, at least not any buddhist monks that I have spoken to in my life time. Such as his mother that dreamed that angels took her to a top of a mountain and a white elephant with 6 tusks which walks around her and then pokes her side and disappears inside her, she was then found to be pregnant the next day, of course the elephant representing Bodhisattva. As for the walking when he was born I heard that story a few times, but mainly he takes 7 steps north and then makes that statement. But no buddhist monk that I have met believe that this as literal truth, of an immaculate conception, that he walked and talked when he was born, that the devil attacked him, or many of the other supernatural feats are true, they at least realize that they are meant as stories to impart morality or a lesson to the listener. Even more so, there are stories in buddhism that mirror jesus quite well, immaculate conceptions, being attacked by the devil on his path, turn the other cheek lesson, however what I will state this much, gautama buddha, doesn't contradict his peaceful nature, he doesn't attack the devil or any one else for that matter. Yet it is sad that christians cannot see that the jesus character in many aspects has taken stories not just from middle eastern legends but legends and myths that happened in various cultures that interacted with the middle east. They cannot accept it at all, it's pretty sad.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jackspell wrote:

For everyone else that is intelligent enough to not argue against the fact that Jesus and the disciples existed, I will gladly engage that stance.

There are a few threads on this already on this forum.

jackspell wrote:

I agree, just because we have tons of historical evidence showing they existed,

1 ton = 2000 lbs. Tons as you use it means something like 4,000 to 6,000 lbs.

I don't think so. They probably all existed, but there isn't thousands of pounds of documentation from the time period that they supposedly lived.

jackspell wrote:

doesn't necessarily mean He performed miracles and was resurrected.

No, it doesn't. He could have been like Apolloious of Tyana

jackspell wrote:

So I would like to hear any and all of your explanations of the facts that are almost universally accepted by New Testament historians, Theologian and skeptic.

The facts are not what you are about to claim.

jackspell wrote:

The facts are, someone named Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Messiah,

Someone named Jesus may have been crucified. Why he was is not "Universally Accepted". He could have been simply a rebel or criminal.

jackspell wrote:

his tomb was found empty by a group of women,

This is not a fact. This is an assertion and a legend.

jackspell wrote:

many people experienced appearences of Jesus after his death,

This also is not a fact. This is another legend.

jackspell wrote:

and Christianity originated and flourished in the very place he was crucified.

It's not clear exactly where the Jesus believers actually originated. You have an exact GPS location?

Are you claiming it began on the spot he was executed? If so, present the proof for that.

You have not presented facts here, you have presented assertions and legends.

Try again with actual facts.

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 ton = 2000 lbs. Tons as you use it means something like 4,000 to 6,000 lbs.

I don't think so. They probably all existed, but there isn't thousands of pounds of documentation from the time period that they supposedly lived.

Archeological evidence is historical evidence.  Considering all the tombs, temples, altars etc. that have been excavated, I'd say we have MANY tons of historical evidence.  Don't you feel stupid now?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, it doesn't. He could have been like Apolloious of Tyana.

Wrong again.  There are no claims of Apollonius being RESSURECTED.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Someone named Jesus may have been crucified. Why he was is not "Universally Accepted". He could have been simply a rebel or criminal.

Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. [23][24][25][8].   Jesus is tried by the Sanhedrin, mocked and beaten and is condemned for making claims of being the Son of God.[295][297][298].  

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jackspell wrote:

his tomb was found empty by a group of women,

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This is not a fact. This is an assertion and a legend.

jackspell wrote:

many people experienced appearences of Jesus after his death,

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This also is not a fact. This is another legend.

According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."16 As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions".17

Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."18

Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the mid-1st century.[6][7] Originating in the eastern Mediterranean coast of the Middle East (modern Israel and Palestine), it quickly spread to Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and Egypt.

Try a little harder next time. 

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:
....why didn't the Jewish authorities just go get the corpse out of the tomb and put it on display for everyone?

 

                                                          Perhaps for the same reason no one can go and retrieve the body of King Arthur.  

 

 

 

jackspell wrote:
Just like lots of people CLAIMED to have seen Jesus. But here is the difference, Jesus also appeared to 500 people simultaneously! Now, we both know 500 people don't experience the same hallucination. That's not how hallucinations work. So I'm pretty sure if 500 people said they saw someone, even Elvis, you wouldn't just write it off as a halucination.

 

                                                  On October 13, 1917 at Fatima, Portugal between 30,000 to 100,000

                                                claimed to have seen a miracle in the skies that was a sign from The Virgin Mary™

                                                Most Protestants completely reject this "miracle" despite the thousands of

                                                eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen it.   Do you believe the Virgin Mary™

                                                actually paid them a visit from Heaven ?

 

          

If 70,000 people say they saw it, I believe it.  You care to explain why you reject it?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:
....why didn't the Jewish authorities just go get the corpse out of the tomb and put it on display for everyone?

 

                                                          Perhaps for the same reason no one can go and retrieve the body of King Arthur.  

 

 

 

jackspell wrote:
Just like lots of people CLAIMED to have seen Jesus. But here is the difference, Jesus also appeared to 500 people simultaneously! Now, we both know 500 people don't experience the same hallucination. That's not how hallucinations work. So I'm pretty sure if 500 people said they saw someone, even Elvis, you wouldn't just write it off as a halucination.

 

                                                  On October 13, 1917 at Fatima, Portugal between 30,000 to 100,000

                                                claimed to have seen a miracle in the skies that was a sign from The Virgin Mary™

                                                Most Protestants completely reject this "miracle" despite the thousands of

                                                eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen it.   Do you believe the Virgin Mary™

                                                actually paid them a visit from Heaven ?

 

          

If 70,000 people say they saw it, I believe it.  You care to explain why you reject it?

Billions of Muslims claim Muhammad was the one true prophet of the Islamic God Allah, so since they have the most numbers that must mean Allah is the one true god. All those people cant be lying?

For the same DAMNED REASON you reject the claims of those billions of people who believe in Allah. I merely reject one more god claim than you do.

1. Popularity of a claim does not make it true.

2. Popularity of a tradition does not make it true.

3. Wanting a claim to be true is not the same as having the ability to demonstrate the credibility of a claim.

The Ancient Egyptians believed the sun was a god, and it was a popular belief for their culture. That FALSE belief served them well for 3,000 years, but that did not make the sun a thinking deity.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3188
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Billions of

Brian37 wrote:

Billions of Muslims claim Muhammad was the one true prophet of the Islamic God Allah, so since they have the most numbers that must mean Allah is the one true god. All those people cant be lying?

For the same DAMNED REASON you reject the claims of those billions of people who believe in Allah. I merely reject one more god claim than you do.

1. Popularity of a claim does not make it true.

2. Popularity of a tradition does not make it true.

3. Wanting a claim to be true is not the same as having the ability to demonstrate the credibility of a claim.

The Ancient Egyptians believed the sun was a god, and it was a popular belief for their culture. That FALSE belief served them well for 3,000 years, but that did not make the sun a thinking deity.

The god if islam, judaism and christianity are all the same fucker

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:
....why didn't the Jewish authorities just go get the corpse out of the tomb and put it on display for everyone?

 

                                                          Perhaps for the same reason no one can go and retrieve the body of King Arthur.  

 

 

 

jackspell wrote:
Just like lots of people CLAIMED to have seen Jesus. But here is the difference, Jesus also appeared to 500 people simultaneously! Now, we both know 500 people don't experience the same hallucination. That's not how hallucinations work. So I'm pretty sure if 500 people said they saw someone, even Elvis, you wouldn't just write it off as a halucination.

 

                                                  On October 13, 1917 at Fatima, Portugal between 30,000 to 100,000

                                                claimed to have seen a miracle in the skies that was a sign from The Virgin Mary™

                                                Most Protestants completely reject this "miracle" despite the thousands of

                                                eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen it.   Do you believe the Virgin Mary™

                                                actually paid them a visit from Heaven ?

 

          

If 70,000 people say they saw it, I believe it.  You care to explain why you reject it?

Because they couldn't agree on what they saw the sun do?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:jackspell

jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:
....why didn't the Jewish authorities just go get the corpse out of the tomb and put it on display for everyone?

 

                                                          Perhaps for the same reason no one can go and retrieve the body of King Arthur.  

 

 

 

jackspell wrote:
Just like lots of people CLAIMED to have seen Jesus. But here is the difference, Jesus also appeared to 500 people simultaneously! Now, we both know 500 people don't experience the same hallucination. That's not how hallucinations work. So I'm pretty sure if 500 people said they saw someone, even Elvis, you wouldn't just write it off as a halucination.

 

                                                  On October 13, 1917 at Fatima, Portugal between 30,000 to 100,000

                                                claimed to have seen a miracle in the skies that was a sign from The Virgin Mary™

                                                Most Protestants completely reject this "miracle" despite the thousands of

                                                eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen it.   Do you believe the Virgin Mary™

                                                actually paid them a visit from Heaven ?

 

          

If 70,000 people say they saw it, I believe it.  You care to explain why you reject it?

Because they couldn't agree on what they saw the sun do?

If 70,000 people claimed Elvis never died, would that make Elvis alive? The ability to put words to paper or spew bullshit out of your mouth is hardly impressive no matter how pretty you think the words are.

THE ONLY WAY TO PROVE ANY CLAIM is to TEST AND FALSIFY IT. The rest is mere tradition and myth.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
jackspell

jackspell wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 ton = 2000 lbs. Tons as you use it means something like 4,000 to 6,000 lbs.

I don't think so. They probably all existed, but there isn't thousands of pounds of documentation from the time period that they supposedly lived.

Archeological evidence is historical evidence.  Considering all the tombs, temples, altars etc. that have been excavated, I'd say we have MANY tons of historical evidence.  Don't you feel stupid now?

Please list all of the tombs, altars, temples that document the disciples that date to the 1st century CE.

What you said was:

jackspell wrote:
For everyone else that is intelligent enough to not argue against the fact that Jesus and the disciples existed, I will gladly engage that stance. I agree, just because we have tons of historical evidence showing they existed,...

So detail these tombs, altars, and temples that DATE TO THE PERIOD, IE 1st Century relate to the disciples and the Jesus.

Generaic altars, temple and tombs of the masses are not tons of evidence for the disciples or the Jesus. They are evidence that there were people living in Palestine.

There are many more tons using your method to indicate the Annuanki were gods than the disciples.

And documentation means writing.

I understand your reasoning though and don't hold your snarky atitude against you.

jackspell wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, it doesn't. He could have been like Apolloious of Tyana.

Wrong again.  There are no claims of Apollonius being RESSURECTED.

More misrepresentation on what you originally said and how I responded.

What you originally said:

jackspell wrote:
Jesus and the disciples existed, I will gladly engage that stance. I agree, just because we have tons of historical evidence showing they existed, doesn't necessarily mean He performed miracles and was resurrected.

Here you indicate just because they may have existed did not mean he performed miracles and was resurrected. So I agreed with that and cited another supposed miracle worker of the time period. So you immediately contradicted what you said in the 1st place with your statement.

jackspell wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Someone named Jesus may have been crucified. Why he was is not "Universally Accepted". He could have been simply a rebel or criminal.

Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. [23][24][25][8].   Jesus is tried by the Sanhedrin, mocked and beaten and is condemned for making claims of being the Son of God.[295][297][298].  

Definition of sedition from you own link you quoted indicates "In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order."

So being a rebel and/or a criminal under Roman law is covered by this.

The rest that you claim is not "Universally Accepted" such as

The baptism claim.

The trial by the Sanhedrin

The claim of being mocked and beaten.

These claims are part of the unproved legends.

 

jackspell wrote:

jackspell wrote:

his tomb was found empty by a group of women,

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This is not a fact. This is an assertion and a legend.

jackspell wrote:

many people experienced appearences of Jesus after his death,

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This also is not a fact. This is another legend.

According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."16 As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions".17

Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."18

Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the mid-1st century.[6][7] Originating in the eastern Mediterranean coast of the Middle East (modern Israel and Palestine), it quickly spread to Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and Egypt.

Try a little harder next time. 

You really need to pay attention to what you originally claim before you respond.

Quoting 1 or 2 people that have an opinion that the Jesus appeared to others does not make it a "fact"

I can do the exact opposite quoting people that consider it did not happen.

Such as :

Bart Ehrman in Jesus Interupted p177, "Why was the tomb supposedly empty? I say supposedly because frankly, I don't know that it was."

James Carroll in Constantine's Sword p124 "To imagine Jesus as risen was to expect that soon all would be. This theological affirmation that Jesus had been raised from the dead by his faithful Father followed upon the human experience that when they gathered in his memory, he was still with them." And p 125 - "His love survived his death which is what the Resurrction means." Also see entire chapter "The Healing Circle pp122-134.

If I chose to spend some time on this, I can list many more, therefore your statement that it is "Universally Accepted" is false.

There are facts in this world and there are beliefs. What you are claiming as facts can't be established as facts in regard to:

An empty tomb found by many women. In fact the Gospels disagree on this themselves, so you have a multiple choice as given:

Mark - Mary the mother of James and John, Salome and Mary Magdalene find it empty. They tell no one

Matt - Mary Magdalene and the other Mary

Luke - Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James and John go to the tomb

John - Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw the stone had been rolled away. No other women present.

 

Snarky and disrespectful comments such as "don't you feel stupid now" reflect on the person that you are and those you represent.

Gandhi on Jesus and Christians had this to say, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

jackspell wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1 ton = 2000 lbs. Tons as you use it means something like 4,000 to 6,000 lbs.

I don't think so. They probably all existed, but there isn't thousands of pounds of documentation from the time period that they supposedly lived.

Archeological evidence is historical evidence.  Considering all the tombs, temples, altars etc. that have been excavated, I'd say we have MANY tons of historical evidence.  Don't you feel stupid now?

Please list all of the tombs, altars, temples that document the disciples that date to the 1st century CE.

What you said was:

jackspell wrote:
For everyone else that is intelligent enough to not argue against the fact that Jesus and the disciples existed, I will gladly engage that stance. I agree, just because we have tons of historical evidence showing they existed,...

So detail these tombs, altars, and temples that DATE TO THE PERIOD, IE 1st Century relate to the disciples and the Jesus.

Generaic altars, temple and tombs of the masses are not tons of evidence for the disciples or the Jesus. They are evidence that there were people living in Palestine.

There are many more tons using your method to indicate the Annuanki were gods than the disciples.

And documentation means writing.

I understand your reasoning though and don't hold your snarky atitude against you.

jackspell wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No, it doesn't. He could have been like Apolloious of Tyana.

Wrong again.  There are no claims of Apollonius being RESSURECTED.

More misrepresentation on what you originally said and how I responded.

What you originally said:

jackspell wrote:
Jesus and the disciples existed, I will gladly engage that stance. I agree, just because we have tons of historical evidence showing they existed, doesn't necessarily mean He performed miracles and was resurrected.

Here you indicate just because they may have existed did not mean he performed miracles and was resurrected. So I agreed with that and cited another supposed miracle worker of the time period. So you immediately contradicted what you said in the 1st place with your statement.

jackspell wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Someone named Jesus may have been crucified. Why he was is not "Universally Accepted". He could have been simply a rebel or criminal.

Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. [23][24][25][8].   Jesus is tried by the Sanhedrin, mocked and beaten and is condemned for making claims of being the Son of God.[295][297][298].  

Definition of sedition from you own link you quoted indicates "In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order."

So being a rebel and/or a criminal under Roman law is covered by this.

The rest that you claim is not "Universally Accepted" such as

The baptism claim.

The trial by the Sanhedrin

The claim of being mocked and beaten.

These claims are part of the unproved legends.

 

jackspell wrote:

jackspell wrote:

his tomb was found empty by a group of women,

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This is not a fact. This is an assertion and a legend.

jackspell wrote:

many people experienced appearences of Jesus after his death,

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

This also is not a fact. This is another legend.

According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."16 As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions".17

Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."18

Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the mid-1st century.[6][7] Originating in the eastern Mediterranean coast of the Middle East (modern Israel and Palestine), it quickly spread to Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and Egypt.

Try a little harder next time. 

You really need to pay attention to what you originally claim before you respond.

Quoting 1 or 2 people that have an opinion that the Jesus appeared to others does not make it a "fact"

I can do the exact opposite quoting people that consider it did not happen.

Such as :

Bart Ehrman in Jesus Interupted p177, "Why was the tomb supposedly empty? I say supposedly because frankly, I don't know that it was."

James Carroll in Constantine's Sword p124 "To imagine Jesus as risen was to expect that soon all would be. This theological affirmation that Jesus had been raised from the dead by his faithful Father followed upon the human experience that when they gathered in his memory, he was still with them." And p 125 - "His love survived his death which is what the Resurrction means." Also see entire chapter "The Healing Circle pp122-134.

If I chose to spend some time on this, I can list many more, therefore your statement that it is "Universally Accepted" is false.

There are facts in this world and there are beliefs. What you are claiming as facts can't be established as facts in regard to:

An empty tomb found by many women. In fact the Gospels disagree on this themselves, so you have a multiple choice as given:

Mark - Mary the mother of James and John, Salome and Mary Magdalene find it empty. They tell no one

Matt - Mary Magdalene and the other Mary

Luke - Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James and John go to the tomb

John - Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw the stone had been rolled away. No other women present.

 

Snarky and disrespectful comments such as "don't you feel stupid now" reflect on the person that you are and those you represent.

Gandhi on Jesus and Christians had this to say, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

There are SOME motifs, in the bible that SOUND nice which is what Gandhi and even Jefferson liked, but neither believed that Jesus was a magical super hero.

Which is why I doubt Jefferson today would support the right wing nuts, in their insistence of the country being a "Christian Nation". These same people would if given the power behave in the opposite manor they paint their Jesus as.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Gandhi on Jesus and Christians had this to say, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

There are SOME motifs, in the bible that SOUND nice which is what Gandhi and even Jefferson liked, but neither believed that Jesus was a magical super hero.

Which is why I doubt Jefferson today would support the right wing nuts, in their insistence of the country being a "Christian Nation". These same people would if given the power behave in the opposite manor they paint their Jesus as.

 

 

I know Brian, that wasn't my point.

The Jesus in the Gospels like you was a liberal. He advocated social welfare.

That does not make the Jesus a "super hero" any more than it makes you one.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Quote:
Oh wow! Your post is filled with so much valid information I think I'll convert to christianity. Yep... that convinces me. Jesus was real.

The Buddhist Bum demonstrates my point perfectly. You can give the pagan pigs an entire exhaustive list of evidence both for Scripture and against their imaginery belief systems and they STILL will not ever ever be a Christian.

Because God has created some as Vessel's of Wrath (Romans 9:21-22) created for the demonstration of His wrath as they burn in torment and hell.

On a side note jack, this is not evidence at all that Jesus is Lord. And liberal scholars recognize this evidence and redefine who jesus is such as the Jesus Seminar so as to make him an impotent loser like Bum here.

Josh McDowle or however you spell his name is a false and erronous way to argument for anything let alone the Christianity but can be used to mock the pagan (Psalm 2:4 - and God Mocks).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:The Jesus in the

Quote:
The Jesus in the Gospels like you was a liberal. He advocated social welfare.

NO, although I like how Jefferson and Gandhi wanted to view the Jesus character, there is a reason the church of the dark ages and even the sexism and bigotry and genocide by Christians in our Country's history happened.

The reason Christianity is more civil in the west is because it has been FORCED to cherry pick the words of the bible. You can find quotes in the bible that people RIGHTFULLY OR WRONGFULLY twisted to use as justification to kill non Christians, to enslave blacks, kill off Native Americans, deny the rights of women to vote, and deny the rights even today of gays.

IF there were no bible, or holy book ever written, there wouldn't be anyone of any side of an issue that could pick it up and use it as a weapon. Jefferson was part of the Age of Enlightenment that recognized that there could be no civility when laws are bible based because there were at his time, too many competing sects that did use their bibles as justification for their own tribalism.

CIVILITY did not start because of Christianity, it came about in spite of Christianity.

There are quotes in the NT quoting Jesus "Think not that I bring peace, I bring not peace, but a sword". And "even if your own family abandons me, abandon them". Those quotes and many others throughout the bible can be used just as equally for harm as liberals claim Jesus was peaceful.

And there is no ban on wealth "Leave to Caesar" and it most certainly condoned slavery which only wealthy people could afford. The OT which Christianity HAS NOT ABANDON talks about rules for punishment for people who injure or steal or kill someone else's slave.

That would be like saying "Look, yea I was a mass muderer before, just forget about all that".

Cherry picking is how BOTH Gandi and Jefferson glossed over all the nasty stuff in the bible. And even the last book is a giant sick act of genocide all so daddy upstairs can watch his toys murder each other shouting "My daddy loves me best",

The entire book reads like an abusive spouse.

Part one, the dating period. The boyfriend buys roses(garden) but says "don't think just do". Then goes on to beat the shit out of everyone up till part two who doesn't kiss his ass.

Part two: MORE PEACEFUL but still dependent on kissing his ass, it is just that he has pulled a fake suicide to convince you you shouldn't leave him. "OR ELSE"

Part three: I'll just go back to being a violent prick and murder any dissenters.

When you view the plot of the bible Jesus in this context really becomes a moot point. It is like saying Stalin didn't beat anyone who sucked up to him.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Quote:
Oh wow! Your post is filled with so much valid information I think I'll convert to christianity. Yep... that convinces me. Jesus was real.

The Buddhist Bum demonstrates my point perfectly. You can give the pagan pigs an entire exhaustive list of evidence both for Scripture and against their imaginery belief systems and they STILL will not ever ever be a Christian.

Because God has created some as Vessel's of Wrath (Romans 9:21-22) created for the demonstration of His wrath as they burn in torment and hell.

On a side note jack, this is not evidence at all that Jesus is Lord. And liberal scholars recognize this evidence and redefine who jesus is such as the Jesus Seminar so as to make him an impotent loser like Bum here.

Josh McDowle or however you spell his name is a false and erronous way to argument for anything let alone the Christianity but can be used to mock the pagan (Psalm 2:4 - and God Mocks).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Pagan pigs like Paul of Tarsus (who you were kind enough to quote) and the followers of his religion?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brother Jean Jean

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

You can give the pagan pigs an entire exhaustive list of evidence both for Scripture and against their imaginery belief systems and they STILL will not ever ever be a Christian.

Storytelling and misconstrued understanding does not make Christianity real.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

You can give the pagan pigs an entire exhaustive list of evidence both for Scripture and against their imaginery belief systems and they STILL will not ever ever be a Christian.

Storytelling and misconstrued understanding does not make Christianity real.

 

It is real in the sense that it is a real myth people falsely and traditionally hold as true, much like the Egyptians for 3,000 years falsely believed the sun was a deity. But belief in Christ or following Christianity does not make any of the fantastic claims in the bible true.

Just like we can prove that a human wrote Harry Potter doesn't mean little boys can fly around on brooms.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:The

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The Jesus in the Gospels like you was a liberal. He advocated social welfare.

NO, although I like how Jefferson and Gandhi wanted to view the Jesus character, there is a reason the church of the dark ages and even the sexism and bigotry and genocide by Christians in our Country's history happened.

The Church of the Middle Ages was not into socialism or caring for others. It was a tool used by the blood thirsty elite for domination of others.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The reason Christianity is more civil in the west is because it has been FORCED to cherry pick the words of the bible. You can find quotes in the bible that people RIGHTFULLY OR WRONGFULLY twisted to use as justification to kill non Christians, to enslave blacks, kill off Native Americans, deny the rights of women to vote, and deny the rights even today of gays.

Christians would have no problem as Brother Jean shows with his barrage of tripe, forcing their beliefs on others through threats or violence. They did it before and they would try again if they could. We already have far too much of their morals forced upon us. 

Brian37 wrote:

IF there were no bible, or holy book ever written, there wouldn't be anyone of any side of an issue that could pick it up and use it as a weapon. Jefferson was part of the Age of Enlightenment that recognized that there could be no civility when laws are bible based because there were at his time, too many competing sects that did use their bibles as justification for their own tribalism.

No, someone would create a cult of bullshit to dominate and control the weak minded resulting in essentially the same thing.

Brian37 wrote:

CIVILITY did not start because of Christianity, it came about in spite of Christianity.

I agree.

The Church has more than adequately demonstrated it's willingness to kill. From popes that hacked people to death, Julius II, to those that sent thousands out to save the Jesus' birthplace from the infidel Muslims, to the church sponsored crusades against non-believers or those that practiced a different version of storytelling legends such as the Cathars.

Brian37 wrote:

There are quotes in the NT quoting Jesus "Think not that I bring peace, I bring not peace, but a sword". And "even if your own family abandons me, abandon them". Those quotes and many others throughout the bible can be used just as equally for harm as liberals claim Jesus was peaceful.

And there is no ban on wealth "Leave to Caesar" and it most certainly condoned slavery which only wealthy people could afford. The OT which Christianity HAS NOT ABANDON talks about rules for punishment for people who injure or steal or kill someone else's slave.

All true.

And so is the parts that Christians ignore about helping the poor, give all away and follow me.

We should have no homeless problem in the US if just the Catholic church took in all the homeless, they clearly have available space.

Brian37 wrote:

That would be like saying "Look, yea I was a mass muderer before, just forget about all that".

Cherry picking is how BOTH Gandi and Jefferson glossed over all the nasty stuff in the bible. And even the last book is a giant sick act of genocide all so daddy upstairs can watch his toys murder each other shouting "My daddy loves me best",

The entire book reads like an abusive spouse.

Part one, the dating period. The boyfriend buys roses(garden) but says "don't think just do". Then goes on to beat the shit out of everyone up till part two who doesn't kiss his ass.

Part two: MORE PEACEFUL but still dependent on kissing his ass, it is just that he has pulled a fake suicide to convince you you shouldn't leave him. "OR ELSE"

Part three: I'll just go back to being a violent prick and murder any dissenters.

When you view the plot of the bible Jesus in this context really becomes a moot point. It is like saying Stalin didn't beat anyone who sucked up to him.

No argument that the book as propagated by Christians is used in a similar way.

Consider this:

I know you are an Obama supporter and so am I mostly.

He has done several things that completely piss me off.

Such as sponsoring bills that taxed smokers to pay for CHIPS.

Such as not leaving Afghanistan.

Such as not following through on Change We Can Believe In.

And Brian, I walked the streets for Obama in 2008 for 2 weeks.

I made banners for him for the Democratic Convention in Denver.

So is he like the Jesus, an abusive spouse as well?

Should I just ignore any good he does and now consider him evil?

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:First off,

latincanuck wrote:

First off, 500 people did not see jesus resurrected, that is simply a claim made by Paul and Paul only, he doesn't give a location where it appeared or even the name of a single witness. This is second hand account at BEST.  The empty tomb and resurrection has many plausible explanations, however if Jesus was tried as a criminal then he wouldn't have been given a proper burial, that is historical fact. Third part is that none of his disciple saw him crucified nor did they see the empty tomb, Rome wouldn't have given the body over to anyone as it would have made sure it could not be made into a martyr and even more so they would make sure that the criminal would not have a dignified burial.

Next part even if the empty tomb is true, it does not mean the resurrection is true, any other explanation if more historically superior over the resurrection idea which never could have happened. As for Paul's conversion, many people throughout history have left everything to follow religion, from buddha as recently as Mase (last person I can think of anyways) still doesn't mean that jesus existed as per the bible exactly, he may have existed as a person by the legendary parts, like the feeding of the people, the resurrection etc, etc, etc are all mythological or legendary in telling. Jesus isn't the first character or religious figure to have been resurrected. John the baptist before him supposed had an empty tomb and was resurrected....hmmmm strange how jesus and john have the same story. Or could it be that the disciples of jesus wanted him to be bigger than john and used the same story and only mention john in passing? Or mention him resisting baptizing jesus? On the serious note the bible is set up with lots of mythology, to deny that is to deny reality of the bible. It's not historical fact at all. Even biblical scholars acknowledge that much.

According to Professor Sherwin-White, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd." The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.

After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus’s tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."

One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis, however, which is almost never addressed by sceptical critics, is that the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this to happen. This point has been well-explained by A. N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries after these two writers. According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:latincanuck

Brian37 wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

First off, 500 people did not see jesus resurrected, that is simply a claim made by Paul and Paul only, he doesn't give a location where it appeared or even the name of a single witness. This is second hand account at BEST.  The empty tomb and resurrection has many plausible explanations, however if Jesus was tried as a criminal then he wouldn't have been given a proper burial, that is historical fact. Third part is that none of his disciple saw him crucified nor did they see the empty tomb, Rome wouldn't have given the body over to anyone as it would have made sure it could not be made into a martyr and even more so they would make sure that the criminal would not have a dignified burial.

Next part even if the empty tomb is true, it does not mean the resurrection is true, any other explanation if more historically superior over the resurrection idea which never could have happened. As for Paul's conversion, many people throughout history have left everything to follow religion, from buddha as recently as Mase (last person I can think of anyways) still doesn't mean that jesus existed as per the bible exactly, he may have existed as a person by the legendary parts, like the feeding of the people, the resurrection etc, etc, etc are all mythological or legendary in telling. Jesus isn't the first character or religious figure to have been resurrected. John the baptist before him supposed had an empty tomb and was resurrected....hmmmm strange how jesus and john have the same story. Or could it be that the disciples of jesus wanted him to be bigger than john and used the same story and only mention john in passing? Or mention him resisting baptizing jesus? On the serious note the bible is set up with lots of mythology, to deny that is to deny reality of the bible. It's not historical fact at all. Even biblical scholars acknowledge that much.

I completely agree but I try to draw a parallel.

If I wrote a book about myself, since I am a real person living in a real location, does that mean I cant lie in the book I write? If I claimed to be a billionaire, would that make it true simply because I wrote the words in a book?

Again, we know that George Washington existed, but if I wrote a book about him and claimed he could cure the blind or fly like Superman, would that be true because George Washington was a real person? Would George Washington really be able to fly like Superman if I claimed in that same book 500 people saw George Washington fly like Superman?

He doesn't understand HOW myths and legends get started. They are merely the reflections of the desires of the people of that time. But no matter what book claims what real person, INSIDE OR OUTSIDE religion, it will never make any of the fantastic claims real. Harry Potter has a REAL actor playing him, but that does not mean boys can fly around on brooms.

Virgin births are absurd claims. It takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote which makes godsperm a bullshit claim. Human flesh NEVER HAS or ever will survive rigor mortis, which makes the death claim of Jesus in the bible also a bullshit claim. No matter who wrote it, just like Harry Potter will never fly around on brooms outside of the movies.

 

Tell me this, if 7 billion people all reported a non-contradictory account of God appearing in the sky and speaking to them, would you believe it?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Brian37

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

First off, 500 people did not see jesus resurrected, that is simply a claim made by Paul and Paul only, he doesn't give a location where it appeared or even the name of a single witness. This is second hand account at BEST.  The empty tomb and resurrection has many plausible explanations, however if Jesus was tried as a criminal then he wouldn't have been given a proper burial, that is historical fact. Third part is that none of his disciple saw him crucified nor did they see the empty tomb, Rome wouldn't have given the body over to anyone as it would have made sure it could not be made into a martyr and even more so they would make sure that the criminal would not have a dignified burial.

Next part even if the empty tomb is true, it does not mean the resurrection is true, any other explanation if more historically superior over the resurrection idea which never could have happened. As for Paul's conversion, many people throughout history have left everything to follow religion, from buddha as recently as Mase (last person I can think of anyways) still doesn't mean that jesus existed as per the bible exactly, he may have existed as a person by the legendary parts, like the feeding of the people, the resurrection etc, etc, etc are all mythological or legendary in telling. Jesus isn't the first character or religious figure to have been resurrected. John the baptist before him supposed had an empty tomb and was resurrected....hmmmm strange how jesus and john have the same story. Or could it be that the disciples of jesus wanted him to be bigger than john and used the same story and only mention john in passing? Or mention him resisting baptizing jesus? On the serious note the bible is set up with lots of mythology, to deny that is to deny reality of the bible. It's not historical fact at all. Even biblical scholars acknowledge that much.

I completely agree but I try to draw a parallel.

If I wrote a book about myself, since I am a real person living in a real location, does that mean I cant lie in the book I write? If I claimed to be a billionaire, would that make it true simply because I wrote the words in a book?

Again, we know that George Washington existed, but if I wrote a book about him and claimed he could cure the blind or fly like Superman, would that be true because George Washington was a real person? Would George Washington really be able to fly like Superman if I claimed in that same book 500 people saw George Washington fly like Superman?

He doesn't understand HOW myths and legends get started. They are merely the reflections of the desires of the people of that time. But no matter what book claims what real person, INSIDE OR OUTSIDE religion, it will never make any of the fantastic claims real. Harry Potter has a REAL actor playing him, but that does not mean boys can fly around on brooms.

Virgin births are absurd claims. It takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote which makes godsperm a bullshit claim. Human flesh NEVER HAS or ever will survive rigor mortis, which makes the death claim of Jesus in the bible also a bullshit claim. No matter who wrote it, just like Harry Potter will never fly around on brooms outside of the movies.

 

Tell me this, if 7 billion people all reported a non-contradictory account of God appearing in the sky and speaking to them, would you believe it?

Perhaps, if there were no possible natural explanation. Unlike you, though, I'd spend a good deal of time looking for that explanation.

Unfortunately for you, there are so many "miracles" that have natural explanations. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

 Jackspell, 

Did the disciples die because they believed in the teachings of their master Jesus?

No one really knows because the only documents claiming to relate the teachings of Jesus were written long after his and his disciples' deaths by people who never met them.

The gospels weren't written by the guys whose names are attached to them.

Paul didn't convert to Christianity - he created it. Paul was an semi-educated pagan who wanted to be a Pharisee but didn't have the intellectual chops He was supposedly in the employ of the high priest to persecute Christians. The high priest was a Sadducee - no Pharisee would work for a Sadducee.

If Jesus and Paul had ever met, Jesus would likely have slapped Paul silly and/or brought him before the Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy. Contrary to the stories you've been told, the Sanhedrin really didn't pay that much attention to the Jesus movement. In fact, Jesus was most likely a Pharisee teacher himself.

As for the odds in the WLC quote - the odds are 1:1 because it happened.

It doesnt look good for skepticism when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. For example, the story of Jesus’s suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.

Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases.

Paul claimed to be "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee." [Phil. 3:5] But the Bible reveals very little about Paul's family. Paul's "sister's son" is mentioned in Acts 23:16. Acts also quotes Paul indirectly referring to his father by saying he was "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee". [Acts 23:6] Paul refers to his mother in Romans 16:13 as among those at Rome.

Acts identifies Paul as from the Mediterranean city of Tarsus (in present-day south-central Turkey), well-known for its intellectual environment [Acts 21:39] .

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:jackspell

jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

First off, 500 people did not see jesus resurrected, that is simply a claim made by Paul and Paul only, he doesn't give a location where it appeared or even the name of a single witness. This is second hand account at BEST.  The empty tomb and resurrection has many plausible explanations, however if Jesus was tried as a criminal then he wouldn't have been given a proper burial, that is historical fact. Third part is that none of his disciple saw him crucified nor did they see the empty tomb, Rome wouldn't have given the body over to anyone as it would have made sure it could not be made into a martyr and even more so they would make sure that the criminal would not have a dignified burial.

Next part even if the empty tomb is true, it does not mean the resurrection is true, any other explanation if more historically superior over the resurrection idea which never could have happened. As for Paul's conversion, many people throughout history have left everything to follow religion, from buddha as recently as Mase (last person I can think of anyways) still doesn't mean that jesus existed as per the bible exactly, he may have existed as a person by the legendary parts, like the feeding of the people, the resurrection etc, etc, etc are all mythological or legendary in telling. Jesus isn't the first character or religious figure to have been resurrected. John the baptist before him supposed had an empty tomb and was resurrected....hmmmm strange how jesus and john have the same story. Or could it be that the disciples of jesus wanted him to be bigger than john and used the same story and only mention john in passing? Or mention him resisting baptizing jesus? On the serious note the bible is set up with lots of mythology, to deny that is to deny reality of the bible. It's not historical fact at all. Even biblical scholars acknowledge that much.

I completely agree but I try to draw a parallel.

If I wrote a book about myself, since I am a real person living in a real location, does that mean I cant lie in the book I write? If I claimed to be a billionaire, would that make it true simply because I wrote the words in a book?

Again, we know that George Washington existed, but if I wrote a book about him and claimed he could cure the blind or fly like Superman, would that be true because George Washington was a real person? Would George Washington really be able to fly like Superman if I claimed in that same book 500 people saw George Washington fly like Superman?

He doesn't understand HOW myths and legends get started. They are merely the reflections of the desires of the people of that time. But no matter what book claims what real person, INSIDE OR OUTSIDE religion, it will never make any of the fantastic claims real. Harry Potter has a REAL actor playing him, but that does not mean boys can fly around on brooms.

Virgin births are absurd claims. It takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote which makes godsperm a bullshit claim. Human flesh NEVER HAS or ever will survive rigor mortis, which makes the death claim of Jesus in the bible also a bullshit claim. No matter who wrote it, just like Harry Potter will never fly around on brooms outside of the movies.

 

Tell me this, if 7 billion people all reported a non-contradictory account of God appearing in the sky and speaking to them, would you believe it?

Perhaps, if there were no possible natural explanation. Unlike you, though, I'd spend a good deal of time looking for that explanation.

Unfortunately for you, there are so many "miracles" that have natural explanations. 

Okay, so if Jesus appeared to you, then instantly transported both of you to the surface of the sun, then brought you back unharmed, would you become a Christian?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

 Jackspell, 

Did the disciples die because they believed in the teachings of their master Jesus?

No one really knows because the only documents claiming to relate the teachings of Jesus were written long after his and his disciples' deaths by people who never met them.

The gospels weren't written by the guys whose names are attached to them.

Paul didn't convert to Christianity - he created it. Paul was an semi-educated pagan who wanted to be a Pharisee but didn't have the intellectual chops He was supposedly in the employ of the high priest to persecute Christians. The high priest was a Sadducee - no Pharisee would work for a Sadducee.

If Jesus and Paul had ever met, Jesus would likely have slapped Paul silly and/or brought him before the Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy. Contrary to the stories you've been told, the Sanhedrin really didn't pay that much attention to the Jesus movement. In fact, Jesus was most likely a Pharisee teacher himself.

As for the odds in the WLC quote - the odds are 1:1 because it happened.

It doesnt look good for skepticism when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. For example, the story of Jesus’s suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death. Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases. Paul claimed to be "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee." [Phil. 3:5] But the Bible reveals very little about Paul's family. Paul's "sister's son" is mentioned in Acts 23:16. Acts also quotes Paul indirectly referring to his father by saying he was "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee". [Acts 23:6] Paul refers to his mother in Romans 16:13 as among those at Rome. Acts identifies Paul as from the Mediterranean city of Tarsus (in present-day south-central Turkey), well-known for its intellectual environment [Acts 21:39] .

1. The gospels having prior sources besides the OT  is an unproven assertion. The fact that the writers used the OT to build a back-story for the Jesus character does more to support my position than yours.

2. Pesch's position that Mark's source must go back to AD 37 is baseless without evidence for this source's influence. It also shows that Mark was a good researcher and not that Jesus the Son of God existed.

3. Paul had his hands on Jesus' teaching because he wanted to be a Pharisee (he didn't have the intellectual chops). Remember, Jesus was a Pharisee.  And no, Paul had no connection to Gamaliel (just in case you bring that up). Gamaliel did not teach beginners.

4. Paul's claims (and the claims of his converts) mean nothing. After all, Paul was trying to create a religion to supplant Judaism with himself as its head. It's similar to how L. Ron Hubbard built himself up by adding falsehoods to his biography.

5. Paul also claimed to be a Roman citizen when it suited him. 

6. Just because Tarsus was a good intellectual environment does not mean Paul was an intellectual.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Tell me

jackspell wrote:

Tell me this, if 7 billion people all reported a non-contradictory account of God appearing in the sky and speaking to them, would you believe it?

Yet all in all you never answer anything that anyone asks, you avoid answering the question in regards to the problems with you statements. The fact is those FACTS that you stated are not facts at all, they are assumptions at best.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3188
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Or of

latincanuck wrote:

Or of course and that's it, but in many aspects they don't claim the most absurd parts as literal truth, at least not any buddhist monks that I have spoken to in my life time. Such as his mother that dreamed that angels took her to a top of a mountain and a white elephant with 6 tusks which walks around her and then pokes her side and disappears inside her, she was then found to be pregnant the next day, of course the elephant representing Bodhisattva. As for the walking when he was born I heard that story a few times, but mainly he takes 7 steps north and then makes that statement. But no buddhist monk that I have met believe that this as literal truth, of an immaculate conception, that he walked and talked when he was born, that the devil attacked him, or many of the other supernatural feats are true, they at least realize that they are meant as stories to impart morality or a lesson to the listener. Even more so, there are stories in buddhism that mirror jesus quite well, immaculate conceptions, being attacked by the devil on his path, turn the other cheek lesson, however what I will state this much, gautama buddha, doesn't contradict his peaceful nature, he doesn't attack the devil or any one else for that matter. Yet it is sad that christians cannot see that the jesus character in many aspects has taken stories not just from middle eastern legends but legends and myths that happened in various cultures that interacted with the middle east. They cannot accept it at all, it's pretty sad.

Yeah, they are absurd, but in the buddhist text siddhartha tells one follower who had heard several myths that they should disregard them. He tells followers that the human ego will make up these stories to gain attention for the story teller.

As for the walking north bit, I've heard both, another example of how they are bullshit.

The stories go parallel with jesus and all the other "prophets" or "deities".

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:If 70,000

jackspell wrote:

If 70,000 people say they saw it, I believe it.  You care to explain why you reject it?

 

            Because I lack the same degree of gullibility as yourself, for starters. 

   

                       Do you believe in the phenomenon known as stigmata ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:jackspell

latincanuck wrote:

jackspell wrote:

Tell me this, if 7 billion people all reported a non-contradictory account of God appearing in the sky and speaking to them, would you believe it?

Yet all in all you never answer anything that anyone asks, you avoid answering the question in regards to the problems with you statements. The fact is those FACTS that you stated are not facts at all, they are assumptions at best.

Example?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:jcgadfly

jackspell wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

jackspell wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

First off, 500 people did not see jesus resurrected, that is simply a claim made by Paul and Paul only, he doesn't give a location where it appeared or even the name of a single witness. This is second hand account at BEST.  The empty tomb and resurrection has many plausible explanations, however if Jesus was tried as a criminal then he wouldn't have been given a proper burial, that is historical fact. Third part is that none of his disciple saw him crucified nor did they see the empty tomb, Rome wouldn't have given the body over to anyone as it would have made sure it could not be made into a martyr and even more so they would make sure that the criminal would not have a dignified burial.

Next part even if the empty tomb is true, it does not mean the resurrection is true, any other explanation if more historically superior over the resurrection idea which never could have happened. As for Paul's conversion, many people throughout history have left everything to follow religion, from buddha as recently as Mase (last person I can think of anyways) still doesn't mean that jesus existed as per the bible exactly, he may have existed as a person by the legendary parts, like the feeding of the people, the resurrection etc, etc, etc are all mythological or legendary in telling. Jesus isn't the first character or religious figure to have been resurrected. John the baptist before him supposed had an empty tomb and was resurrected....hmmmm strange how jesus and john have the same story. Or could it be that the disciples of jesus wanted him to be bigger than john and used the same story and only mention john in passing? Or mention him resisting baptizing jesus? On the serious note the bible is set up with lots of mythology, to deny that is to deny reality of the bible. It's not historical fact at all. Even biblical scholars acknowledge that much.

I completely agree but I try to draw a parallel.

If I wrote a book about myself, since I am a real person living in a real location, does that mean I cant lie in the book I write? If I claimed to be a billionaire, would that make it true simply because I wrote the words in a book?

Again, we know that George Washington existed, but if I wrote a book about him and claimed he could cure the blind or fly like Superman, would that be true because George Washington was a real person? Would George Washington really be able to fly like Superman if I claimed in that same book 500 people saw George Washington fly like Superman?

He doesn't understand HOW myths and legends get started. They are merely the reflections of the desires of the people of that time. But no matter what book claims what real person, INSIDE OR OUTSIDE religion, it will never make any of the fantastic claims real. Harry Potter has a REAL actor playing him, but that does not mean boys can fly around on brooms.

Virgin births are absurd claims. It takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote which makes godsperm a bullshit claim. Human flesh NEVER HAS or ever will survive rigor mortis, which makes the death claim of Jesus in the bible also a bullshit claim. No matter who wrote it, just like Harry Potter will never fly around on brooms outside of the movies.

 

Tell me this, if 7 billion people all reported a non-contradictory account of God appearing in the sky and speaking to them, would you believe it?

Perhaps, if there were no possible natural explanation. Unlike you, though, I'd spend a good deal of time looking for that explanation.

Unfortunately for you, there are so many "miracles" that have natural explanations. 

Okay, so if Jesus appeared to you, then instantly transported both of you to the surface of the sun, then brought you back unharmed, would you become a Christian?

Would I be allowed to take measurements or just his word that we were on the sun? Your God has been known to lie.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:latincanuck

jackspell wrote:
latincanuck wrote:

jackspell wrote:

Tell me this, if 7 billion people all reported a non-contradictory account of God appearing in the sky and speaking to them, would you believe it?

Yet all in all you never answer anything that anyone asks, you avoid answering the question in regards to the problems with you statements. The fact is those FACTS that you stated are not facts at all, they are assumptions at best.

Example?

Oh boy, well lets see, you stated that 500 people saw jesus resurrected as a fact, yet the reality is no that is merely an assumption, paul never states a location or names anyone that actually saw jesus resurrected, Paul never saw jesus resurrected, hence right there which you stated was a fact is actually a mere assumption at best, in reality it is more just an unsubstantiated claim.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jackspell wrote:

If 70,000 people say they saw it, I believe it.  You care to explain why you reject it?

 

            Because I lack the same degree of gullibility as yourself, for starters. 

   

                       Do you believe in the phenomenon known as stigmata ?

 

                    While I'm at it, do you believe exorcists like Bob Larson actually cast out demons ?

                    Do you believe that Christians can raise the dead as mentioned in Matthew 10:8 ?

                   

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Vastet

jackspell wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I am amused that jackspell has no response.

 

I am amused that your picture portrays you as an active "Trench Coat Mafia" member.  Shot up any schools lately?

Attempted to defend your ridiculous claims against direct refutations recently?

Funny how the christians are always so quick to judge despite their holy book calling it a sin. Proof there is no christian god? Not even the christians put stock in the bible. lol.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The Jesus in the Gospels like you was a liberal. He advocated social welfare.

NO, although I like how Jefferson and Gandhi wanted to view the Jesus character, there is a reason the church of the dark ages and even the sexism and bigotry and genocide by Christians in our Country's history happened.

The Church of the Middle Ages was not into socialism or caring for others. It was a tool used by the blood thirsty elite for domination of others.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The reason Christianity is more civil in the west is because it has been FORCED to cherry pick the words of the bible. You can find quotes in the bible that people RIGHTFULLY OR WRONGFULLY twisted to use as justification to kill non Christians, to enslave blacks, kill off Native Americans, deny the rights of women to vote, and deny the rights even today of gays.

Christians would have no problem as Brother Jean shows with his barrage of tripe, forcing their beliefs on others through threats or violence. They did it before and they would try again if they could. We already have far too much of their morals forced upon us. 

Brian37 wrote:

IF there were no bible, or holy book ever written, there wouldn't be anyone of any side of an issue that could pick it up and use it as a weapon. Jefferson was part of the Age of Enlightenment that recognized that there could be no civility when laws are bible based because there were at his time, too many competing sects that did use their bibles as justification for their own tribalism.

No, someone would create a cult of bullshit to dominate and control the weak minded resulting in essentially the same thing.

Brian37 wrote:

CIVILITY did not start because of Christianity, it came about in spite of Christianity.

I agree.

The Church has more than adequately demonstrated it's willingness to kill. From popes that hacked people to death, Julius II, to those that sent thousands out to save the Jesus' birthplace from the infidel Muslims, to the church sponsored crusades against non-believers or those that practiced a different version of storytelling legends such as the Cathars.

Brian37 wrote:

There are quotes in the NT quoting Jesus "Think not that I bring peace, I bring not peace, but a sword". And "even if your own family abandons me, abandon them". Those quotes and many others throughout the bible can be used just as equally for harm as liberals claim Jesus was peaceful.

And there is no ban on wealth "Leave to Caesar" and it most certainly condoned slavery which only wealthy people could afford. The OT which Christianity HAS NOT ABANDON talks about rules for punishment for people who injure or steal or kill someone else's slave.

All true.

And so is the parts that Christians ignore about helping the poor, give all away and follow me.

We should have no homeless problem in the US if just the Catholic church took in all the homeless, they clearly have available space.

Brian37 wrote:

That would be like saying "Look, yea I was a mass muderer before, just forget about all that".

Cherry picking is how BOTH Gandi and Jefferson glossed over all the nasty stuff in the bible. And even the last book is a giant sick act of genocide all so daddy upstairs can watch his toys murder each other shouting "My daddy loves me best",

The entire book reads like an abusive spouse.

Part one, the dating period. The boyfriend buys roses(garden) but says "don't think just do". Then goes on to beat the shit out of everyone up till part two who doesn't kiss his ass.

Part two: MORE PEACEFUL but still dependent on kissing his ass, it is just that he has pulled a fake suicide to convince you you shouldn't leave him. "OR ELSE"

Part three: I'll just go back to being a violent prick and murder any dissenters.

When you view the plot of the bible Jesus in this context really becomes a moot point. It is like saying Stalin didn't beat anyone who sucked up to him.

No argument that the book as propagated by Christians is used in a similar way.

Consider this:

I know you are an Obama supporter and so am I mostly.

He has done several things that completely piss me off.

Such as sponsoring bills that taxed smokers to pay for CHIPS.

Such as not leaving Afghanistan.

Such as not following through on Change We Can Believe In.

And Brian, I walked the streets for Obama in 2008 for 2 weeks.

I made banners for him for the Democratic Convention in Denver.

So is he like the Jesus, an abusive spouse as well?

Should I just ignore any good he does and now consider him evil?

 

The difference between Obama, or any REAL human for that matter, is that humans die eventually and stay dead. And humans at least in the west, have a recourse in removing people in office when we don't like what they do. So if Obama has pissed you off that much, don't vote for him again. But even if he gets re-elected, he cant hold office forever by our laws.

THE SAME cannot be said for the god/s of Abraham. Capone set up soup kitchens but that did not make him a nice guy. The same dogmatism that sets up state fascism is the same dogmatism that sets up theocracies and the same dogmatism that pulls people into the Maffia. It is a bribe punishment motif.

There are claims in the bible that SOUND NICE, but those things that we do that are nice, are not because a god exists so allowing Christians to believe the fantastic claims, can only exist as a human rights issue, not as a credible claim that Christianity invented life, evolution or ANY of the good or bad we do to each other.

Humans do good things in the name of their gods/ sure, but that does not mean they need them. If Obama had not been elected someone else would have been. But the same rules would apply to that person too, not based on a god, but based on the Constitutional laws that prevent monopolies of power. The Abrhamic gods ae the epitome of a monopoly of power. Lots of people loved Stalin, and he did do good things for his supporters, but you were fucked if you opened your mouth and you could not remove him from office.

SAME with the history of the Royalty of England. It has been neutered to the point of being a mere figurehead, but when they English empires started and they had their first Monarchy, I am quite sure the "subjects" who did what the King wanted and were loyal to him, were treated well. Jesus in the book, like I said ALSO SAID "If your family abandons me, you abandon them". Obama cannot force you to be loyal to him or vote for him. THAT is the difference.

"Christians do nice things" SO WHAT, it does not change the actual words in the bible that contradict the "kind" parts. There is also nasty stuff this god character does to dissent as well.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Bias pervades

Vastet wrote:
Bias pervades the scholarship. The christians especially, but some jews and even a few moslems have an interest in promoting the authenticity of a script that contains no useful information. The day that the majority of scholars are not tied in some way to the very material they say is accurate, and they still say the bible contains useful and accurate information is the day I'll entertain the idea. Until then it's just a bunch of fanboys promoting their favourite fiction stories.

 

Egh...  most of the '(heavily revised) story' of (any) "Joseph bar Jonah" is a stretch regardless of who's doing the digging and examining.

 

Strange as it is for me to say this () I can respect your argument, but I don't think it will matter who studies the "evidence", ever. After all... it's not as if anyone can check Mary's hymen for solid proof of virgin pregnancy two millenia after the fact.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The Jesus in the Gospels like you was a liberal. He advocated social welfare.

NO, although I like how Jefferson and Gandhi wanted to view the Jesus character, there is a reason the church of the dark ages and even the sexism and bigotry and genocide by Christians in our Country's history happened.

The Church of the Middle Ages was not into socialism or caring for others. It was a tool used by the blood thirsty elite for domination of others.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The reason Christianity is more civil in the west is because it has been FORCED to cherry pick the words of the bible. You can find quotes in the bible that people RIGHTFULLY OR WRONGFULLY twisted to use as justification to kill non Christians, to enslave blacks, kill off Native Americans, deny the rights of women to vote, and deny the rights even today of gays.

Christians would have no problem as Brother Jean shows with his barrage of tripe, forcing their beliefs on others through threats or violence. They did it before and they would try again if they could. We already have far too much of their morals forced upon us. 

Brian37 wrote:

IF there were no bible, or holy book ever written, there wouldn't be anyone of any side of an issue that could pick it up and use it as a weapon. Jefferson was part of the Age of Enlightenment that recognized that there could be no civility when laws are bible based because there were at his time, too many competing sects that did use their bibles as justification for their own tribalism.

No, someone would create a cult of bullshit to dominate and control the weak minded resulting in essentially the same thing.

Brian37 wrote:

CIVILITY did not start because of Christianity, it came about in spite of Christianity.

I agree.

The Church has more than adequately demonstrated it's willingness to kill. From popes that hacked people to death, Julius II, to those that sent thousands out to save the Jesus' birthplace from the infidel Muslims, to the church sponsored crusades against non-believers or those that practiced a different version of storytelling legends such as the Cathars.

Brian37 wrote:

There are quotes in the NT quoting Jesus "Think not that I bring peace, I bring not peace, but a sword". And "even if your own family abandons me, abandon them". Those quotes and many others throughout the bible can be used just as equally for harm as liberals claim Jesus was peaceful.

And there is no ban on wealth "Leave to Caesar" and it most certainly condoned slavery which only wealthy people could afford. The OT which Christianity HAS NOT ABANDON talks about rules for punishment for people who injure or steal or kill someone else's slave.

All true.

And so is the parts that Christians ignore about helping the poor, give all away and follow me.

We should have no homeless problem in the US if just the Catholic church took in all the homeless, they clearly have available space.

Brian37 wrote:

That would be like saying "Look, yea I was a mass muderer before, just forget about all that".

Cherry picking is how BOTH Gandhi and Jefferson glossed over all the nasty stuff in the bible. And even the last book is a giant sick act of genocide all so daddy upstairs can watch his toys murder each other shouting "My daddy loves me best",

The entire book reads like an abusive spouse.

Part one, the dating period. The boyfriend buys roses(garden) but says "don't think just do". Then goes on to beat the shit out of everyone up till part two who doesn't kiss his ass.

Part two: MORE PEACEFUL but still dependent on kissing his ass, it is just that he has pulled a fake suicide to convince you you shouldn't leave him. "OR ELSE"

Part three: I'll just go back to being a violent prick and murder any dissenters.

When you view the plot of the bible Jesus in this context really becomes a moot point. It is like saying Stalin didn't beat anyone who sucked up to him.

No argument that the book as propagated by Christians is used in a similar way.

Consider this:

I know you are an Obama supporter and so am I mostly.

He has done several things that completely piss me off.

Such as sponsoring bills that taxed smokers to pay for CHIPS.

Such as not leaving Afghanistan.

Such as not following through on Change We Can Believe In.

And Brian, I walked the streets for Obama in 2008 for 2 weeks.

I made banners for him for the Democratic Convention in Denver.

So is he like the Jesus, an abusive spouse as well?

Should I just ignore any good he does and now consider him evil?

 

The difference between Obama, or any REAL human for that matter, is that humans die eventually and stay dead. And humans at least in the west, have a recourse in removing people in office when we don't like what they do. So if Obama has pissed you off that much, don't vote for him again. But even if he gets re-elected, he cant hold office forever by our laws.

I know, that was not the point.

Considering the alternatives, I'll continue to support Obama.

Brian37 wrote:

THE SAME cannot be said for the god/s of Abraham. Capone set up soup kitchens but that did not make him a nice guy. The same dogmatism that sets up state fascism is the same dogmatism that sets up theocracies and the same dogmatism that pulls people into the Maffia. It is a bribe punishment motif.

Again, that was not the point.

I was not talking about the gods of Abe.

You know full well I consider Abe aka Yahweh to be a myth that developed and morphed into the god of Abe with the Jesus as his storytelling legend of a son.

Brian37 wrote:

There are claims in the bible that SOUND NICE, but those things that we do that are nice, are not because a god exists so allowing Christians to believe the fantastic claims, can only exist as a human rights issue, not as a credible claim that Christianity invented life, evolution or ANY of the good or bad we do to each other.

I don't see where any of the "claims" sound nice at all. That require you to live in the "land of never was and never will be."

The point I was making which caused you to go ballistic was that "Christians", I use that term generally, do not even follow the example of their "idol" which is what THE JESUS really is in the NT.

They selectively pick the parts to use for an example and ignore what is actually shown as a requirement. By and large even under their own created myths they are all fucked.

Brian37 wrote:

Humans do good things in the name of their gods/ sure, but that does not mean they need them. If Obama had not been elected someone else would have been. But the same rules would apply to that person too, not based on a god, but based on the Constitutional laws that prevent monopolies of power. The Abrhamic gods ae the epitome of a monopoly of power. Lots of people loved Stalin, and he did do good things for his supporters, but you were fucked if you opened your mouth and you could not remove him from office.

Fire your retro rockets Brian.

I was not discussing that either.

My point in bringing up the Gandhi quote was only to show that the supposed "Christians" don't follow the example of THE JESUS of their myths. That's what Gandhi meant in his quote as well.

Their out, is no one is perfect, and they can beg the god on their death bed for forgiveness. At which point all of the violence, murder and deceit is forgiven and they go to the heavenly cloud place to kiss ass and worship the king 24/7 for eternity.

If Obama hadn't been elected and McCain/Palin had, I'd be living in Canada.

Brian37 wrote:

SAME with the history of the Royalty of England. It has been neutered to the point of being a mere figurehead, but when they English empires started and they had their first Monarchy, I am quite sure the "subjects" who did what the King wanted and were loyal to him, were treated well. Jesus in the book, like I said ALSO SAID "If your family abandons me, you abandon them". Obama cannot force you to be loyal to him or vote for him. THAT is the difference.

England and the other king ships of the period you mention were dictatorships by the elite or the special. It's part of the bullshit that is propagated in the believers version of their reward as well. After you die or at the 2nd resurrection, depending on the storytelling myth, you go to the heavenly cloud place to be ruled by the Yahweh or the Allah. You get your rewards as in the same you mention for ass kissing in the monarchies of the past. However, you still must kiss ass to the dictator 24/7 for eternity.

Brian37 wrote:

"Christians do nice things" SO WHAT, it does not change the actual words in the bible that contradict the "kind" parts. There is also nasty stuff this god character does to dissent as well.

I never indicated that Christians did nice things, I indicated they weren't following the examples of their "idol" THE JESUS.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The Jesus in the Gospels like you was a liberal. He advocated social welfare.

NO, although I like how Jefferson and Gandhi wanted to view the Jesus character, there is a reason the church of the dark ages and even the sexism and bigotry and genocide by Christians in our Country's history happened.

The Church of the Middle Ages was not into socialism or caring for others. It was a tool used by the blood thirsty elite for domination of others.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The reason Christianity is more civil in the west is because it has been FORCED to cherry pick the words of the bible. You can find quotes in the bible that people RIGHTFULLY OR WRONGFULLY twisted to use as justification to kill non Christians, to enslave blacks, kill off Native Americans, deny the rights of women to vote, and deny the rights even today of gays.

Christians would have no problem as Brother Jean shows with his barrage of tripe, forcing their beliefs on others through threats or violence. They did it before and they would try again if they could. We already have far too much of their morals forced upon us. 

Brian37 wrote:

IF there were no bible, or holy book ever written, there wouldn't be anyone of any side of an issue that could pick it up and use it as a weapon. Jefferson was part of the Age of Enlightenment that recognized that there could be no civility when laws are bible based because there were at his time, too many competing sects that did use their bibles as justification for their own tribalism.

No, someone would create a cult of bullshit to dominate and control the weak minded resulting in essentially the same thing.

Brian37 wrote:

CIVILITY did not start because of Christianity, it came about in spite of Christianity.

I agree.

The Church has more than adequately demonstrated it's willingness to kill. From popes that hacked people to death, Julius II, to those that sent thousands out to save the Jesus' birthplace from the infidel Muslims, to the church sponsored crusades against non-believers or those that practiced a different version of storytelling legends such as the Cathars.

Brian37 wrote:

There are quotes in the NT quoting Jesus "Think not that I bring peace, I bring not peace, but a sword". And "even if your own family abandons me, abandon them". Those quotes and many others throughout the bible can be used just as equally for harm as liberals claim Jesus was peaceful.

And there is no ban on wealth "Leave to Caesar" and it most certainly condoned slavery which only wealthy people could afford. The OT which Christianity HAS NOT ABANDON talks about rules for punishment for people who injure or steal or kill someone else's slave.

All true.

And so is the parts that Christians ignore about helping the poor, give all away and follow me.

We should have no homeless problem in the US if just the Catholic church took in all the homeless, they clearly have available space.

Brian37 wrote:

That would be like saying "Look, yea I was a mass muderer before, just forget about all that".

Cherry picking is how BOTH Gandhi and Jefferson glossed over all the nasty stuff in the bible. And even the last book is a giant sick act of genocide all so daddy upstairs can watch his toys murder each other shouting "My daddy loves me best",

The entire book reads like an abusive spouse.

Part one, the dating period. The boyfriend buys roses(garden) but says "don't think just do". Then goes on to beat the shit out of everyone up till part two who doesn't kiss his ass.

Part two: MORE PEACEFUL but still dependent on kissing his ass, it is just that he has pulled a fake suicide to convince you you shouldn't leave him. "OR ELSE"

Part three: I'll just go back to being a violent prick and murder any dissenters.

When you view the plot of the bible Jesus in this context really becomes a moot point. It is like saying Stalin didn't beat anyone who sucked up to him.

No argument that the book as propagated by Christians is used in a similar way.

Consider this:

I know you are an Obama supporter and so am I mostly.

He has done several things that completely piss me off.

Such as sponsoring bills that taxed smokers to pay for CHIPS.

Such as not leaving Afghanistan.

Such as not following through on Change We Can Believe In.

And Brian, I walked the streets for Obama in 2008 for 2 weeks.

I made banners for him for the Democratic Convention in Denver.

So is he like the Jesus, an abusive spouse as well?

Should I just ignore any good he does and now consider him evil?

 

The difference between Obama, or any REAL human for that matter, is that humans die eventually and stay dead. And humans at least in the west, have a recourse in removing people in office when we don't like what they do. So if Obama has pissed you off that much, don't vote for him again. But even if he gets re-elected, he cant hold office forever by our laws.

I know, that was not the point.

Considering the alternatives, I'll continue to support Obama.

Brian37 wrote:

THE SAME cannot be said for the god/s of Abraham. Capone set up soup kitchens but that did not make him a nice guy. The same dogmatism that sets up state fascism is the same dogmatism that sets up theocracies and the same dogmatism that pulls people into the Maffia. It is a bribe punishment motif.

Again, that was not the point.

I was not talking about the gods of Abe.

You know full well I consider Abe aka Yahweh to be a myth that developed and morphed into the god of Abe with the Jesus as his storytelling legend of a son.

Brian37 wrote:

There are claims in the bible that SOUND NICE, but those things that we do that are nice, are not because a god exists so allowing Christians to believe the fantastic claims, can only exist as a human rights issue, not as a credible claim that Christianity invented life, evolution or ANY of the good or bad we do to each other.

I don't see where any of the "claims" sound nice at all. That require you to live in the "land of never was and never will be."

The point I was making which caused you to go ballistic was that "Christians", I use that term generally, do not even follow the example of their "idol" which is what THE JESUS really is in the NT.

They selectively pick the parts to use for an example and ignore what is actually shown as a requirement. By and large even under their own created myths they are all fucked.

Brian37 wrote:

Humans do good things in the name of their gods/ sure, but that does not mean they need them. If Obama had not been elected someone else would have been. But the same rules would apply to that person too, not based on a god, but based on the Constitutional laws that prevent monopolies of power. The Abrhamic gods ae the epitome of a monopoly of power. Lots of people loved Stalin, and he did do good things for his supporters, but you were fucked if you opened your mouth and you could not remove him from office.

Fire your retro rockets Brian.

I was not discussing that either.

My point in bringing up the Gandhi quote was only to show that the supposed "Christians" don't follow the example of THE JESUS of their myths. That's what Gandhi meant in his quote as well.

Their out, is no one is perfect, and they can beg the god on their death bed for forgiveness. At which point all of the violence, murder and deceit is forgiven and they go to the heavenly cloud place to kiss ass and worship the king 24/7 for eternity.

If Obama hadn't been elected and McCain/Palin had, I'd be living in Canada.

Brian37 wrote:

SAME with the history of the Royalty of England. It has been neutered to the point of being a mere figurehead, but when they English empires started and they had their first Monarchy, I am quite sure the "subjects" who did what the King wanted and were loyal to him, were treated well. Jesus in the book, like I said ALSO SAID "If your family abandons me, you abandon them". Obama cannot force you to be loyal to him or vote for him. THAT is the difference.

England and the other king ships of the period you mention were dictatorships by the elite or the special. It's part of the bullshit that is propagated in the believers version of their reward as well. After you die or at the 2nd resurrection, depending on the storytelling myth, you go to the heavenly cloud place to be ruled by the Yahweh or the Allah. You get your rewards as in the same you mention for ass kissing in the monarchies of the past. However, you still must kiss ass to the dictator 24/7 for eternity.

Brian37 wrote:

"Christians do nice things" SO WHAT, it does not change the actual words in the bible that contradict the "kind" parts. There is also nasty stuff this god character does to dissent as well.

I never indicated that Christians did nice things, I indicated they weren't following the examples of their "idol" THE JESUS.

 

 

And you missed my point, SOME DO follow the "nice stories" my point is still the same, even the ones who do the pretty stuff like "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" and "give to the poor" STILL gloss over the nasty shit the god character does all throughout the bible to dissent.

Hitchens had it right, ANY of the Abraham  gods people follow, the individuals more loyal to their invisible friend are the once more likely to take their holy book word for word and thus do nasty shit to outsiders. The people in these religions that do nice things for outsiders have to water down their books in order to be civil.

The reason is that this character demands loyalty and once you accept you need to be loyal at all costs you are going to throw all the compassion out the window when something in that particular book is called into question.

Jean is a perfect example as to what liberal Christians ignore. But that is what all religions do in general, set up an in group out group and get pitted against each other by loyalty tests under the stupid guise of "proper interpretation".

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And you missed

Brian37 wrote:

And you missed my point, SOME DO follow the "nice stories" my point is still the same, even the ones who do the pretty stuff like "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" and "give to the poor" STILL gloss over the nasty shit the god character does all throughout the bible to dissent.

Some do exactly that. All justify the god's action as he is the god or creator or in my words the dictator king. He made it all so can do whatever he choses after all he made the rules. It's the "I brought you into this world and I can take you out" atitude. And of course he said  "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things." Isaiah 45:7. So, object to selling one's daughter as allowed per The Law of Moses. Object to killing all the women and children. No, as the god knows best. He has a plan unknown to man. Justifications such as that are delusional.

Brian37 wrote:

Hitchens had it right, ANY of the Abraham  gods people follow, the individuals more loyal to their invisible friend are the once more likely to take their holy book word for word and thus do nasty shit to outsiders. The people in these religions that do nice things for outsiders have to water down their books in order to be civil.

Since the Holy Book has multiple choices for actions, one can find the choice that best fits one's goals and use it to justify anything, such as in the Crusades call, "God wills it". Which since the god didn't land his spaceship in front of St Peter's to tell not so Innocent II, he heard that voice whilst in the outhouse or from the fantasy voice in his head.

In order to attract new victims, I mean conscripts, I mean members or is it suckers, one must make with good advertising. See the recent Mormon ads on TV for example.

Brian37 wrote:

The reason is that this character demands loyalty and once you accept you need to be loyal at all costs you are going to throw all the compassion out the window when something in that particular book is called into question.

Burn the witch, heretic or infidel. Exactly.

Brian37 wrote:

Jean is a perfect example as to what liberal Christians ignore. But that is what all religions do in general, set up an in group out group and get pitted against each other by loyalty tests under the stupid guise of "proper interpretation".

 

Brother Jean Jean knows he's right. He'd have been completely at home in 15th century France. Perhaps Jean Jean is a reincarnation of the Inquisitor General Jean Graverant.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

And you missed my point, SOME DO follow the "nice stories" my point is still the same, even the ones who do the pretty stuff like "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" and "give to the poor" STILL gloss over the nasty shit the god character does all throughout the bible to dissent.

Some do exactly that. All justify the god's action as he is the god or creator or in my words the dictator king. He made it all so can do whatever he choses after all he made the rules. It's the "I brought you into this world and I can take you out" atitude. And of course he said  "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things." Isaiah 45:7. So, object to selling one's daughter as allowed per The Law of Moses. Object to killing all the women and children. No, as the god knows best. He has a plan unknown to man. Justifications such as that are delusional.

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

Hitchens had it right, ANY of the Abraham  gods people follow, the individuals more loyal to their invisible friend are the once more likely to take their holy book word for word and thus do nasty shit to outsiders. The people in these religions that do nice things for outsiders have to water down their books in order to be civil.

Since the Holy Book has multiple choices for actions, one can find the choice that best fits one's goals and use it to justify anything, such as in the Crusades call, "God wills it". Which since the god didn't land his spaceship in front of St Peter's to tell not so Innocent II, he heard that voice whilst in the outhouse or from the fantasy voice in his head.

In order to attract new victims, I mean conscripts, I mean members or is it suckers, one must make with good advertising. See the recent Mormon ads on TV for example.

Brian37 wrote:

The reason is that this character demands loyalty and once you accept you need to be loyal at all costs you are going to throw all the compassion out the window when something in that particular book is called into question.

Burn the witch, heretic or infidel. Exactly.

Brian37 wrote:

Jean is a perfect example as to what liberal Christians ignore. But that is what all religions do in general, set up an in group out group and get pitted against each other by loyalty tests under the stupid guise of "proper interpretation".

 

Brother Jean Jean knows he's right. He'd have been completely at home in 15th century France. Perhaps Jean Jean is a reincarnation of the Inquisitor General Jean Graverant.

Jean is being more loyal to his view of his god claim than liberals. I am glad liberals water their views down, we know what loyalty in the East looks like, I don't want people like Jean having the power to demand that here.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Is that it? Nobody can

Is that it? Nobody can provide a single, plausible, naturalistic explanation to the 3 facts that are universally acknowledged by historians? Alright then. I maintain my belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. Since no one can provide a terminator, no one can claim irrationality.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Brian37

jackspell wrote:
Tell me this, if 7 billion people all reported a non-contradictory account of God appearing in the sky and speaking to them, would you believe it?

I would probably start doing the whole routine for shits and giggles.

"The power of Kap compels you! The power of Kap compels you!"

edit; quote tags -they happen to the best of us!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)