The Historicity Of Jesus
-
As for everything else, its obvious we are not going to change each others' minds. No point in arguing further. To me, God is truly beyond human comprehension. We understand he exists and what he wants from us. That's it. Everything else is beyond us.
I respect your atheism--your faith is your choice.
Damn, so you just decide to back out of the conversation as it starts to get interesting? I'm going to go ahead and respond, anyways.
Yes, that's what I am saying. There are a lot of very old copies and they contain 99.5% of the same stuff. I do not know who wrote all of them.
Just because there are a bunch of things that are the same, it doesn't mean that they're right. If we know nothing about the credibility of who wrote and/or published them, then we know nothing about the credibility of their contents. How many copies exist of the Book of Mormon? Of L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology? Of the Qur'an? Just because something exists and is widespread, does not make it morally correct.
But I do know that the writers of the new testament were guided by God to ensure what they wrote was accurate.
Okay, I invite you to perform a study that any student who's getting a masters in divinity has to do in their intro courses. You claim that God ensured what they wrote was accurate, that's fine, it's a statement that lacks any evidence, but we will move forward on the assumption that you hold it to be true. I ask that you go through the four Gospels that are accepted as canon by the church. When the gospels are typically read, they are read vertically... ie Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, then John (i think). This exercise is going to require you to read them horizontally, which means to read the events that occur simultaneously. As you do this, make a list of any contradictions that you can find between the four texts.
The fact that they didn't know what a pathogen was says a lot about WHO was telling them not to do these things, don't you think?
Perhaps, but that same person also inspired them to rejoice when they dash Babylonian babies heads against rocks. Sure, you can point out his good, but I think that both sides of this deity must be taken into consideration. I think it's more likely that they just got lucky, I mean, why didn't god just inspire them to say that pork is kosher, just make sure you cook it well?
Also, I am bothered by your decision to just ignore my point about the wave-particle duality that is seen in nature. You don't understand it, so you claim that it cannot be understood, and attribute it to God. I find that to be a disturbing train of thought that stifles innovation. There is clearly more to learn about this phenomenon, and our understanding of it allowed us to come to the point where you could voice your opinion to me through the internet.
-
What the hell does this have to do with politics??????????
That is, outside of the fact that Vapor and other libs can't brag about Obamao on his presidency anymore.
" I know, lets debate Jesus instead of keeping quiet about the most dangerously failing socialist president
in United States history. Meanwhile, our debt borrowing has just gone at least to 100% of our GNP.
There's another forum for this stuff. This is a POLITICAL BOARD.
You can bet if Bush were pres, none of the libs would be gone, and none of them would
be wanted to diss Jesus instead of bashing Bush. But now? Most of them are in hiding, I guess.
Please move this subject to the other misc board. Thanks.
Come on, Vapor.; Discuss ObaMAO's utter and complete failure as the U.S. president with us.
Or not. But please stop trying to change the subject of the board.
-
Be bothered all you want. As I said it seems kind of pointless to me. No one is going to change anyone's mind. I can respond, but It will probably take awhile--maybe a few days.
But here's a few quick notes:
-My assertion that humans can only understand that God exists and what he wants from us had nothing to do with understanding the human conscience (which despite your assertions, I don't think anyone will ever be able to understand) but more to do with the fact you asked why God works the way he does.
-Contradictions you find are just nit-picking, taken out of context, or mistranslated.
:neutral_face: -
Believe, and you will be given the proof.
Don't believe and you will never find it.
The proof lies within.
-
LOL.. The title of this thread made me giggle!
Science, such as evolutionary theory, ice caps, fossils, placement of species, etc., has proven that any of the 150+ religions to choose from are not based on any evidence or fact. Anecdotal story telling won't do it... But for some it's comforting.
However, the massive time line that science can explain/portray only goes to a certain point. So if there is a creator, I am not too worried about it. It hasn't bothered us in quite some time. lol. I doubt 'it' cares how often we're murmuring to 'it' at night, who wins a given war or if solutions/actions can be found to correct the errs of the world economy.
-
It hasn't proven that at all.
The irony is finding God is the hardest thing in the world, yet the easiest thing.
All you have to do is ask and listen.
Science explains some things, but in this realm, it doesn't explain shit.
In reality it wasn't that long ago science thought the world was flat and bleeding patients was the way to rid the body of it's toxins.
People claim religion has done more harm than good....how many patients have been nothing more then Guinea Pigs while "medicine" figured out what worked and what didn't??
200 years from now people will think of us as Guinea Pigs and wonder how he lived in such Barbarous times.
The Bible will still be the same.
Truth doesn't change.
-
If the Bible is true for you, then there's nothing that can disprove your 'belief' in it despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.
Science evolves by compiling evidence and information to give us answers or the best possible answers in a given scenario. The bible is assumed to be true and therefore in the eyes of 'believers' can't be questioned. No editing necessary. My biggest issue with the bible is that it doesn't even question if there is a God, just tells us there is one and that we should take their word for it.
If science followed religion's stagnate example, it would be scary to think how our society would have progressed under that kind of regime. To say religion/God is ineffable doesn't prove anything, you're simply using words to back up your point. That's not enough for anyone is actually thinking critically.
-
Actually modern science has its roots in Christianity. Ancient religions did not and could not produce modern science. It was a Christian world-view that was based on a rational God as the source of rational objective truth that gave rise to scientific laws.
The founders of modern science pondered how God made the universe. They began with the propositional truth that God created the universe and they wanted to discover the mysteries of his creation. They recognized patterns and a quality of inter-relationship among the many aspects of creation.
The founders of modern science were Christian. Robert Grosseteste invented the first scientific method that involved step-by-step procedures for testing and verifying hypotheses. He was also a minister and professor at Oxford University.
Sir Francis Bacon, known as the founder of modern science, maintained Christian beliefs.
Gregor Mendel was a monk.
I could go on and on. But know that most of the world's greatest universities were founded for Christian purposes.
-
If the Bible is true for you, then there's nothing that can disprove your 'belief' in it despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.
Science evolves by compiling evidence and information to give us answers or the best possible answers in a given scenario. The bible is assumed to be true and therefore in the eyes of 'believers' can't be questioned. No editing necessary. My biggest issue with the bible is that it doesn't even question if there is a God, just tells us there is one and that we should take their word for it.
If science followed religion's stagnate example, it would be scary to think how our society would have progressed under that kind of regime. To say religion/God is ineffable doesn't prove anything, you're simply using words to back up your point. That's not enough for anyone is actually thinking critically.
If the Bible is true for you, then there's nothing that can disprove your 'belief' in it despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.
Science evolves by compiling evidence and information to give us answers or the best possible answers in a given scenario. The bible is assumed to be true and therefore in the eyes of 'believers' can't be questioned. No editing necessary. My biggest issue with the bible is that it doesn't even question if there is a God, just tells us there is one and that we should take their word for it.
If science followed religion's stagnate example, it would be scary to think how our society would have progressed under that kind of regime. To say religion/God is ineffable doesn't prove anything, you're simply using words to back up your point. That's not enough for anyone is actually thinking critically.
It isn't just about thinking my man.....it as much about feeling and sensing.
That's the part that confuses pure thinkers.
We only use maybe 25% of our brain according to science. One can use all of their soul, and there really are no bounds.
Unlock the soul and you will unlock the brain.
All you have to do is ask and listen.
-
Be bothered all you want. As I said it seems kind of pointless to me. No one is going to change anyone's mind. I can respond, but It will probably take awhile--maybe a few days.
But here's a few quick notes:
-My assertion that humans can only understand that God exists and what he wants from us had nothing to do with understanding the human conscience (which despite your assertions, I don't think anyone will ever be able to understand) but more to do with the fact you asked why God works the way he does.
-Contradictions you find are just nit-picking, taken out of context, or mistranslated.
-Contradictions you find are just nit-picking, taken out of context, or mistranslated.
You do realize that if you're going to label me as nitpicking, then it also labels yourself as cherry-picking, right? Which is one problem with religion. Everyone interprets it differently and then tries to impose their will on others.
From doolox
Science, such as evolutionary theory, ice caps, fossils, placement of species, etc., has proven that any of the 150+ religions to choose from are not based on any evidence or fact. Anecdotal story telling won't do it... But for some it's comforting.
Science hasn't disproved religion. Science CANNOT and will never disprove religion simply because you can't prove something never happened.
From ballpeen
It hasn't proven that at all.
The irony is finding God is the hardest thing in the world, yet the easiest thing.
All you have to do is ask and listen.
Yep, I still haven't heard an answer to why God wants African children to starve to death or die of AIDS.
Science explains some things, but in this realm, it doesn't explain shit.
I agree with you, but not for the same reasons. If you study physics, you'll realize that we really don't know and CAN'T know everything, but you can keep learning.
In reality it wasn't that long ago science thought the world was flat and bleeding patients was the way to rid the body of it's toxins.
And you just described one of the greatest aspects of science, its dynamic nature. Because we're open to learning new things, we no longer believe the world is flat nor do we bleed patients to heal them. Science is always changing and adapting to become better.
People claim religion has done more harm than good....how many patients have been nothing more then Guinea Pigs while "medicine" figured out what worked and what didn't??
Involuntary human testing is disgusting. But voluntary human testing is necessary and incredibly important for medicine. Those people, anyone at all, who volunteered for an experimental treatment has done humanity a great service, and in many cases it cost them their lives. This will continue to happen because there is so much to learn.
200 years from now people will think of us as Guinea Pigs and wonder how he lived in such Barbarous times. The Bible will still be the same.
Yep, it will still begin with a talking snake and end with a three-headed monster. It will still tell you to be happy when you smash the heads of Babylonian babies against the rock. It will still tell you that Mary's body was assumed into heaven. It will still tell you a bunch of shit that everyone is pretty sure didn't really happen, but is too afraid to admit.
Truth doesn't change.
Except when it does. God's truth once included slaves. God's truth once said that if you are a victim of rape, the perp's punishment is to marry you. Loving indeed.
-
Actually modern science has its roots in Christianity.
Actually modern science has its roots in ancient Mesopotamia, China, Greece, and Rome, too.
Ancient religions did not and could not produce modern science. It was a Christian world-view that was based on a rational God as the source of rational objective truth that gave rise to scientific laws.
This is so laughably untrue. Ever hear of Archimedes principle that we still use in modern physics? Or how about Hypatia? A Greek, female mathematician that invented the hydrometer, variations of which we still use today. Did you know that she was tortured and murdered by an angry Christian mob? Euclid? Heard of him? Arabic numbers? We still use those. Who invented the compass, paper, gunpowder, and printing? Christians? Nope. It was the Chinese.
To attribute modern science chiefly to Christianity is asinine. The knowledge of science has existed since the first prehistoric human struck flint against a rock and created fire. Humanity eventually learned how to write, read, speak, and pass on this language, and with this language our picture of the universe has continually become clearer and clearer. And where we are today is the result of over 10,000 years of scientific inquiry. To say it started with the Church takes credit away from every other contribution that has been made outside of it.
There are scientists that arose from many ancient religions, and there is a good reason for it. Only those who were educated and had lots of free time were able to dedicate their lives to science. You needed wealth to become educated, and who had wealth? The *insert religious organization here*. You don't see many scientists being funded by religions anymore. Ever stop to think why that might be? Guess not.
The founders of modern science pondered how God made the universe. They began with the propositional truth that God created the universe and they wanted to discover the mysteries of his creation. They recognized patterns and a quality of inter-relationship among the many aspects of creation.
And then they began to see that there were many things that were inconsistent with what God believed. The Earth was not the center of the universe. That got Galileo.
The founders of modern science were Christian. Robert Grosseteste invented the first scientific method that involved step-by-step procedures for testing and verifying hypotheses. He was also a minister and professor at Oxford University.
...I could go on and on. But know that most of the world's greatest universities were founded for Christian purposes.
That's because Christians had money. The common denominator when it comes to science was and always will be the source of funding.
Monotheism has had its time at the top and, given a century or two, the majority of the educated world will look at it just as you look at polytheism.
-
Yes, Jesus did actually exist. You are questioning his actual existence? This is a first for me. While some may question that he was who he said he was, nearly everyone I've ever heard of acknowledge the man existed.
The historicity of Jesus is a relatively new field of study, and while some of my beliefs on the subject are probably a result of confirmation bias, the contemporary evidence of his existence is fleeting.
Pontius Pilate was the Roman Governor who presided over his crucifixion. The evidence that the new testament is a reliable historical document is starting to become overwhelming.
I'm going to have to ask for your sources on that. I'll share a few facts about the Gospels that you may not know. There is zero evidence outside of the Gospels that Pontius Pilate ever asked a crowd to decide his prisoners' fate, let alone doing it annually for some feast or another. There is zero evidence outside of the Gospels that King Herod ever ordered his soldiers to murder a bunch of innocent babies. The evidence that a census required people to return to the land of their patriarch is wishy-washy, at best. Why then, do these stories exist?
To me, the answer seems very clear. They're stories to make this figure appear more grand.
Besides that, there's evidence of his existence in Roman and Hebrew writings.
Sure, but how much of it is contemporary? The earliest gospel was written 10-30 years after Jesus' death. How many times was the story passed down orally? If you've ever played the game telephone in grade school, you can see how quickly a message can become convoluted. Multiply the length of the game by a factor of 1000, and then you're left with the Gospels, not to mention the politics that influenced the book.
If Jesus existed, then I believe he is a compilation of a person or group of people. This person was a very charismatic and influential anti-Roman radical, which would explain why he was crucified (as the gospels don't give a good reason for it). Many Christians are quick to tout how much evidence there is for Jesus' existence and the supporting Roman documents, but did you know that there is not a single contemporary document that mentions Jesus' execution?
The simplest definition of real Christian Values would be the Ten Commandments. But there's more to it then that. Look into history. Just study some of the things that early Christians did... set up orphanages, hospitals, help for the poor, universities, etc..
I'm not claiming that Christians don't do good things; I am convinced that they've done more harm than good in their 2000 year existence.
None of it is crap. The books are used for guidance. Some of the guidance no longer applies. There were reasons for the guidance that applied to the greater well being of society at the time; some of it doesn't apply today.
That's because we're not as ignorant.
Actually all you have to do to avoid hell and get into heaven is believe and repent. Everyone sins. Is that really so much harder to believe than the theory that the universe was a whole lot of nothingness and didn't even exist until a great explosion occurred?
Saying that there was nothing before the big bang would take as much faith as believing in heaven and hell. There is zero evidence for either, so it isn't that much harder to believe in that specific statement. But what I do try to understand (I'll refrain from using the word "belief") is the evidence that we could draw from. There appears to have been a rapid expansion of space and time, and tracing it backwards leads to a supercondensed point, of which we can draw few conclusions. There could have been another universe before this one, there could have been "nothing," the big bang could have been a result of little green men doing a science experiment, God spoke, and it happened. I'm not going to even pretend that I know there was nothing before the big bang.
[Perfection] doesn't exist outside of the material world.
Well, that's the only world that there is. Unless you want to start talking about parallel dimensions.
Science is the way of explaining human interactions and understanding of the intricate workings of God's creation.
There's no evidence that we're "God's creation," why use that qualifier? If we're made in his image, why aren't we invisible?
Yes, Jesus did actually exist. You are questioning his actual existence? This is a first for me. While some may question that he was who he said he was, nearly everyone I've ever heard of acknowledge the man existed.
The historicity of Jesus is a relatively new field of study, and while some of my beliefs on the subject are probably a result of confirmation bias, the contemporary evidence of his existence is fleeting.
Pontius Pilate was the Roman Governor who presided over his crucifixion. The evidence that the new testament is a reliable historical document is starting to become overwhelming.
I'm going to have to ask for your sources on that. I'll share a few facts about the Gospels that you may not know. There is zero evidence outside of the Gospels that Pontius Pilate ever asked a crowd to decide his prisoners' fate, let alone doing it annually for some feast or another. There is zero evidence outside of the Gospels that King Herod ever ordered his soldiers to murder a bunch of innocent babies. The evidence that a census required people to return to the land of their patriarch is wishy-washy, at best. Why then, do these stories exist?
To me, the answer seems very clear. They're stories to make this figure appear more grand.
Besides that, there's evidence of his existence in Roman and Hebrew writings.
Sure, but how much of it is contemporary? The earliest gospel was written 10-30 years after Jesus' death. How many times was the story passed down orally? If you've ever played the game telephone in grade school, you can see how quickly a message can become convoluted. Multiply the length of the game by a factor of 1000, and then you're left with the Gospels, not to mention the politics that influenced the book.
If Jesus existed, then I believe he is a compilation of a person or group of people. This person was a very charismatic and influential anti-Roman radical, which would explain why he was crucified (as the gospels don't give a good reason for it). Many Christians are quick to tout how much evidence there is for Jesus' existence and the supporting Roman documents, but did you know that there is not a single contemporary document that mentions Jesus' execution?
The simplest definition of real Christian Values would be the Ten Commandments. But there's more to it then that. Look into history. Just study some of the things that early Christians did... set up orphanages, hospitals, help for the poor, universities, etc..
I'm not claiming that Christians don't do good things; I am convinced that they've done more harm than good in their 2000 year existence.
None of it is crap. The books are used for guidance. Some of the guidance no longer applies. There were reasons for the guidance that applied to the greater well being of society at the time; some of it doesn't apply today.
That's because we're not as ignorant.
Actually all you have to do to avoid hell and get into heaven is believe and repent. Everyone sins. Is that really so much harder to believe than the theory that the universe was a whole lot of nothingness and didn't even exist until a great explosion occurred?
Saying that there was nothing before the big bang would take as much faith as believing in heaven and hell. There is zero evidence for either, so it isn't that much harder to believe in that specific statement. But what I do try to understand (I'll refrain from using the word "belief") is the evidence that we could draw from. There appears to have been a rapid expansion of space and time, and tracing it backwards leads to a supercondensed point, of which we can draw few conclusions. There could have been another universe before this one, there could have been "nothing," the big bang could have been a result of little green men doing a science experiment, God spoke, and it happened. I'm not going to even pretend that I know there was nothing before the big bang.
[Perfection] doesn't exist outside of the material world.
Well, that's the only world that there is. Unless you want to start talking about parallel dimensions.
Science is the way of explaining human interactions and understanding of the intricate workings of God's creation.
There's no evidence that we're "God's creation," why use that qualifier? If we're made in his image, why aren't we invisible?
Awesome post Vapor Trail from someone who obiviously can think outside the box.........good for you.........otherwise you are like a lot of people who want to be free and think free.......pissing up a rope
-
lol, of all the posts this shemale spam asshole could have dug up, it just had to be the one about JC
-
I thought that was funny as fuck too lol.
Do you agree with yourself from 3 years ago?
-
I thought that was funny as fuck too lol.
Do you agree with yourself from 3 years ago?
Hrm. I'm still really skeptical that it was all one guy, but the majority of historians suggest that a Jesus did exist.
And good god, as bad as we bunch of bastards are now, I just cringe when I think back to the Mr. T era.
-
I thought that was funny as fuck too lol.
Do you agree with yourself from 3 years ago?
Hrm. I'm still really skeptical that it was all one guy, but the majority of historians suggest that a Jesus did exist.
And good god, as bad as we bunch of bastards are now, I just cringe when I think back to the Mr. T era.
Hrm. I'm still really skeptical that it was all one guy, but the majority of historians suggest that a Jesus did exist.
And good god, as bad as we bunch of bastards are now, I just cringe when I think back to the Mr. T era.
amen
-
Or we have a really clever spam bot that's reading the conversation over in the dark board in the corner.
-
I read through this thread. It's pretty funny. Some of the claims made ate ridiculous. Way to fight the good fight Vapor
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login