A case for religion, and against AA.

[sandorski]

so you found evidence but did not "believe" it hence you reject it and believe there is no God.

He is talking about "claimed evidence".

 

[Retro Rob]

To prove 'my view' wrong you have to prove god exists. Unless you can find a way to disprove my view without proving the other view then I think the two are logical equivalent.

Fair point, fair point.

 

[dphantom]

He is talking about "claimed evidence".

I see. So your position is to redefine what you find as evidence so as to make the idea there is no God palatable to your belief system.

I on the other hand do find compelling the historical record of Jesus, his birth, ministry, death and resurrection.

Of course that is your "claimed" evidence as neither you nor I witnessed first hand the historical events hence neither you nor I can have no "first hand" - would that be the word you would use for evidence you do find compelling?? - evidence anything like the written historical records show.

 

[sandorski]

I see. So your position is to redefine what you find as evidence so as to make the idea there is no God palatable to your belief system.

I on the other hand do find compelling the historical record of Jesus, his birth, ministry, death and resurrection.

Of course that is your "claimed" evidence as neither you nor I witnessed first hand the historical events hence neither you nor I can have no "first hand" - would that be the word you would use for evidence you do find compelling?? - evidence anything like the written historical records show.

It doesn't have to be First Hand. Non-Biblical would be a good start. It is not "redefining", it is looking at claims and judging their veracity.

 

[dphantom]

It doesn't have to be First Hand. Non-Biblical would be a good start. It is not "redefining", it is looking at claims and judging their veracity.

There are many non-Biblical references to Jesus. Do you also not find them compelling?

 

[sandorski]

There are many non-Biblical references to Jesus. Do you also not find them compelling?

Not contemporary to him and not directly about him.

 

[dphantom]

Not contemporary to him and not directly about him.

But you would take historical references to other historical figures that are non-contemporary yes?? That is how we often confirm historical personages and events, from non-contemporary sources.

But when it comes to Jesus, you simply reject all first hand accounts out of hand and any records written shortly after by historians and others you would normally accept on anything else but the historical existence of Jesus.

May I ask why you are so adamant that Jesus did not exist? Forget his divinity. Let's just start with Jesus as a historical person. Do you reject that as well?

 

[sandorski]

But you would take historical references to other historical figures that are non-contemporary yes?? That is how we often confirm historical personages and events, from non-contemporary sources.

But when it comes to Jesus, you simply reject all first hand accounts out of hand and any records written shortly after by historians and others you would normally accept on anything else but the historical existence of Jesus.

May I ask why you are so adamant that Jesus did not exist? Forget his divinity. Let's just start with Jesus as a historical person. Do you reject that as well?

The Historians talked about Christians and what Christians were claiming. They didn't write about Jesus. There's a difference.

As for other historical figures, of those with no contemporary Historians, which ones claim to have performed Miracles and to be God? That makes a difference as well.

 

[dphantom]

The Historians talked about Christians and what Christians were claiming. They didn't write about Jesus. There's a difference.

As for other historical figures, of those with no contemporary Historians, which ones claim to have performed Miracles and to be God? That makes a difference as well.

Let's forget about the Divinity question and just look at Jesus as a historical figure. Using the same criteria you would use for non-contemporary sources validating a historical event/person, do you continue to reject Jesus ever existed?

 

[sandorski]

Let's forget about the Divinity question and just look at Jesus as a historical figure. Using the same criteria you would use for non-contemporary sources validating a historical event/person, do you continue to reject Jesus ever existed?

I don't know if he existed or not, but I will say that the stories in the Bible about him simply can not be accurate if he did exist. Perhaps there was a guy who had a following, that would be the extent of it. It likely wasn't even a large following.

 

[ThinClient]

Let's forget about the Divinity question and just look at Jesus as a historical figure. Using the same criteria you would use for non-contemporary sources validating a historical event/person, do you continue to reject Jesus ever existed?

Using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true is called circular reasoning.

Show me non-biblical evidence that Christ was divine and that god exists.

Ready go.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Let's forget about the Divinity question and just look at Jesus as a historical figure. Using the same criteria you would use for non-contemporary sources validating a historical event/person, do you continue to reject Jesus ever existed?

I think it is a lot easier to accept or reject non-contemporary information about a historical figure when there is also contemporary information available to consider it against.

I know Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States. I know he wasn't really a vampire hunter (that would require extraordinary evidence to believe).

I don't know if Jesus was a real person or not. If he was, I don't think that he was really resurrected or the son of god (that would require extraordinary evidence to believe).

 

[AViking]

I question whether Jesus existed. He might have. He might not have. To me it makes no difference really. The miracles and divinity part is obviously made up or else there would have been lots of non-biblical accounts.

The Jews had been waiting for Jesus for how many hundreds of years? You're telling me that when he finally shows up and starts performing miracles in front of thousands of people that nobody wrote about it?

All of the historians at the time must have felt it wasn't important that the son of god was raising the dead, curing the sick, and controlling nature.

 

[JEDIYoda]

it is looking at claims and judging their veracity.

that's a cop out.....and a lie...

 

[sandorski]

that's a cop out.....and a lie...

How?

 

[Pulsar]

Living in the U.S. has clearly spoiled me. I'm having a very hard time finding a way in which religion has imposed itself upon me on a regular basis.

Alcohol and adult toys/books/DVDs/etc. are readily available.
Divorces are easy to get, and I personally see lots of couples "living in sin". These people are not shunned/abused/harassed. Neither are the mixed-race couples (lots more of those in recent years).
Almost all business are open on Sundays.
Lots of people DON'T attend a church, and these people are not shunned/abused/harassed.
Evolution is taught in our public schools.
Plenty of pork products in the grocery stores.
Etc.

Granted, gays still can't marry, but that's changing. I'm certainly in favor of that. Oh, and it's entirely local churches providing the meals down at the county homeless shelter, which is of course just an awful entanglement of church/state. Hopefully, someone will put a stop to that soon. Religious types imposing their values on the homeless in the form of free meals should not be allowed to stand.

I guess you must have missed every single measure put in place since 9/11 to combat terrorism in the name of a religion.

The way you attempt to turn a blind eye to the bad things that religion has caused is just as bad as atheists who constantly claim that everything religious is evil.

 

[dphantom]

Using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true is called circular reasoning.

Show me non-biblical evidence that Christ was divine and that god exists.

Ready go.

You should read more carefully. I was not asking for evidence of Jesus' divinity. I was asking if using non-contemporary sources such as is often used to validate other historical events was good enough to validate the historical record of Jesus irrespective of whether one considers him Divine or not. That also means to break it down for you so you understand when I say "non-contemporary" that means not using the Bible.

 

[AViking]

You should read more carefully. I was not asking for evidence of Jesus' divinity. I was asking if using non-contemporary sources such as is often used to validate other historical events was good enough to validate the historical record of Jesus irrespective of whether one considers him Divine or not. That also means to break it down for you so you understand when I say "non-contemporary" that means not using the Bible.

There are no non-biblical sources validating the existance of jesus or any of the purported events. Nothing was mentioned outside of the bible by anyone alive during his lifetime let alone anyone born during his lifetime.

 

[soulcougher73]

You should read more carefully. I was not asking for evidence of Jesus' divinity. I was asking if using non-contemporary sources such as is often used to validate other historical events was good enough to validate the historical record of Jesus irrespective of whether one considers him Divine or not. That also means to break it down for you so you understand when I say "non-contemporary" that means not using the Bible.

Wether he was a real person or not isnt a concern. What is a concern IS if he is a divine being, that is all that really matters in this case. I believe he may have existed as a person on earth, but he was just a human like the rest of us. IMO.

 

[JEDIYoda]

There are no non-biblical sources validating the existance of jesus or any of the purported events. Nothing was mentioned outside of the bible by anyone alive during his lifetime let alone anyone born during his lifetime.

never say never...

 

[dphantom]

There are no non-biblical sources validating the existance of jesus or any of the purported events. Nothing was mentioned outside of the bible by anyone alive during his lifetime let alone anyone born during his lifetime.

I think you find yourself among a very tiny minority who reject Jesus ever existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[4] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[5][6][7] Biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

 

[moonbogg]

I think you find yourself among a very tiny minority who reject Jesus ever existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[4] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[5][6][7] Biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

Great. Why did he come to earth before cameras were invented?

 

[dphantom]

Great. Why did he come to earth before cameras were invented?

yeah he could have posted a selfie on FB LOL

 

[Retro Rob]

Great. Why did he come to earth before cameras were invented?

For the same reasons dinosaurs lived before cameras were invented -- it just happened when it happened.

 

[moonbogg]

For the same reasons dinosaurs lived before cameras were invented -- it just happened when it happened.

Nothing "just happens" in god's universe. He has a plan, remember? So don't you think it would have made more sense for him to have forced people to invent the camera before Jesus came and did all the cool tricks? It would have still required faith because people don't always trust pictures, but I think some good photos would have saved a few billion more souls for sure.