A case for religion, and against AA.

[AViking]

If all we're going to do is have circular threads with people sidetracking points and ignoring others I don't see why we don't just lock all these religious threads.

Maybe I'm not the right person to ask though. When I read a thread where people are taking the bible literally I can't help but shake my head. People need to be rational and separate reality from faith. Story from history. Man from myth. At some point people need to be able to understand that they BELIEVE in something vs it being real and absolute. On the flip side people need to allow others to have FAITH without it being a bad thing.

There seems to be this constant need in these last couple of religious threads to have teams. It's looking an awful lot like Republicans vs Democrats. Blind hatred for the other side. People coming in here with the sole purpose of villainizing atheists or fundamentalists. There is a middle ground guys! Where's the rational discourse?

 

[AViking]

er um...

The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ by Pontius Pilate under the rule of Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus is documented within Roman history.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” He also says , “Now there was about this time Jesus, His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous."

it is also well documented the execution of John the Baptist by Hērǭdēs Antipatros by the historian Josephus, as well as his Baptism of Jesus Christ.


Both the Baptism and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ are accepted as undisputed historical facts without consulting a single biblical verse.

The Talmud was first written a couple hundred years after Jesus died and only fundamentalists think it refers to Jesus.

Flavius Josephus was born after Jesus died. All of the historians alive during the life of Jesus were silent. The miracles, raising the dead, curing the sick, and angels being present did not create enough interest for the historians at the time to write about it. Despite waiting for Jesus for hundreds of years the Jews did not mention him in any of their texts.

Where in Roman history is the crucifixion of Jesus documented?

 

[soulcougher73]

more atheist BS.....ni ce try....but that's the problem with being an atheist....you claim to be so smart because you think you have science on your side...
Yet you know nothing of the Bible...in fact ignorance is a good word...

He was using your own words you know? And its not like the bible is some book only believers can read and understand, right? Anyone can read it and come to conclusions based on what is said. In fact most of us do that everyday of our lives.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No Christian ever defends such heinous acts. Nor any other decent moral person, atheist or otherwise.

Look what he wrote to ThinClient. I was responding to that. ThinClient said something similar to what has been said in the past, and he is absolutely spot on with it. JEDIYoda is defending rape, genocide, and slavery in this thread. That is exactly what his responses are, trying to justify and make some sort of morally just case for rape, slavery, and genocide.

 

[dphantom]

Look what he wrote to ThinClient. I was responding to that. ThinClient said something similar to what has been said in the past, and he is absolutely spot on with it. JEDIYoda is defending rape, genocide, and slavery in this thread. That is exactly what his responses are, trying to justify and make some sort of morally just case for rape, slavery, and genocide.

No he is not. At all. You and others are using a discredited argument to make Christianity into something it clearly is not. If you truly understood the teachings of God/Jesus, you could never make such an assertion.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No he is not. At all. You and others are using a discredited argument to make Christianity into something it clearly is not. If you truly understood the teachings of God/Jesus, you could never make such an assertion.

Yes, he is.

as
Yet and this is the sad part of the whole thing -- I posted a response to you about the verses in numbers that you asked about.....but the sad part is that you were going to make the accusations that you have made regardless of what I posted.......

let us simplify an answer to rape and slavery and genocide...

God doesnt allow nor does he approve of rape. slavery or genocide!
Atheists love to take the 'stories" out of context due to a lack of understanding.

For example, God sends the israelites to kill the whole town of canaanites.
People take this as genocide.
When in reality, the cannanites were very bad people, they were drunks, acted on beastiality, performed human sacrifice, and they took over the holy land in which they were allowed 400 years to leave.
It was Gods way of judging them by using the israelites to take back their land. he even told them to offer peace and only kill the soldiers who stayed behind.
So it wasnt a genocide but the israelites taking back their land while casting judgement on these very very bad people. you can do research on them and see how bad they were, they were not innocent.

That is just one of many many misunderstandings of how ignorant atheists are when it comes to the bible. they cherry pick the verses, take them out of context, and use it against christians. when it just makes them look foolish.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html -- slavery

It really does not matter what is posted concerning anything that has to do with God the Bible, rape, slavery or genocide......

You will still show up with the same foolish responses!!

Have a nice week.....

 

[dphantom]

Yes, he is.

still not seeing it. Though I do see you trying desperately to prove Christianity is evil by failing to understand what the books of The Bible is trying to teach.

 

[jhbball]

Rob, did you catch any of the debate? Curious to what your thoughts were.

 

[Exophase]

Where in Roman history is the crucifixion of Jesus documented?

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

This too wasn't contemporary with Jesus, but given that the author was a historian and hardly sympathetic of Christians there's a decent chance that he was using actual official records. A lot of what's accepted in mainstream history doesn't have first hand/contemporary sources, but there's reason to believe that the sources we have themselves had reliable sources that are now lost.

Of course, that says very little about Jesus except he was crucified in Judea and inspired some kind of religious movement. That alone doesn't suggest something that people would have been writing about en masse as it happened.

 

[AViking]

I understand that lots of people in history have been written about after the fact. What we're talking about here though is not some warrior or philosopher.

We're talking about the son of god. God. A person who could raise the dead, cure the sick, turn water into wine, walk on water, and did so in front of thousands of people. Upon his birth and resurrection angels were present. He was a Jew and the Jews had been waiting for his arrival for hundreds of years.

Yet nobody wrote about it. Not one single record exists despite there being historians present at the time and them documenting the times that Jesus would have been present. They never mention Jesus. There is even an account where a historian mentions a town drunk yet no mention of a man who could cure leprosy?

Tacitus was born 20 years or so after Jesus died. His mention of Jesus was written about 82 years or so after Jesus died.

Worse yet the original text is not found. The actual copy that is used is from the 1200's.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, did you catch any of the debate? Curious to what your thoughts were.

My thoughts were that we can have a respectful debate on such a polarizing issue without the militant atheism or dogmatic version of Fundamental Christianity.

Nye's knowledgeable and respectful, and so was the Ham guy (who I didn't know before the other night).

Arguments were both back by evidence, however, Ham was being terribly intellectually dishonest with his critique of not being there to "see the past" means that a rock can be 2000 years old because science doesn't quite know if it's 10 million years old, or 9 million years old, and that starts aren't really billions of miles away because science can't pin a definite distance.

That part I could have done without.

 

[Retro Rob]

I understand that lots of people in history have been written about after the fact. What we're talking about here though is not some warrior or philosopher.

We're talking about the son of god. God. A person who could raise the dead, cure the sick, turn water into wine, walk on water, and did so in front of thousands of people. Upon his birth and resurrection angels were present. He was a Jew and the Jews had been waiting for his arrival for hundreds of years.

Yet nobody wrote about it. Not one single record exists despite there being historians present at the time and them documenting the times that Jesus would have been present. They never mention Jesus. There is even an account where a historian mentions a town drunk yet no mention of a man who could cure leprosy?

Tacitus was born 20 years or so after Jesus died. His mention of Jesus was written about 82 years or so after Jesus died.

Worse yet the original text is not found. The actual copy that is used is from the 1200's.

Yeah, if we can't get things documented to the "T", then the whole account is false.

This is why you aren't religious, because you're looking for every reason to doubt the account.

 

[Exophase]

I understand that lots of people in history have been written about after the fact. What we're talking about here though is not some warrior or philosopher.

We're talking about the son of god. God. A person who could raise the dead, cure the sick, turn water into wine, walk on water, and did so in front of thousands of people. Upon his birth and resurrection angels were present. He was a Jew and the Jews had been waiting for his arrival for hundreds of years.

Yet nobody wrote about it. Not one single record exists despite there being historians present at the time and them documenting the times that Jesus would have been present. They never mention Jesus. There is even an account where a historian mentions a town drunk yet no mention of a man who could cure leprosy?

Tacitus was born 20 years or so after Jesus died. His mention of Jesus was written about 82 years or so after Jesus died.

Worse yet the original text is not found. The actual copy that is used is from the 1200's.

You're making two totally different arguments here. You said outright there was no historic evidence that Jesus even existed, and you're saying that all of these miracles and stuff should have been documented. Whether or not the Biblical accounts accurately portray his life (something I don't believe in the slightest) is not material to the first claim. There is evidence for exactly what I said: a guy named Jesus was crucified in Judea and inspired some kind of religious movement (this inspiration could have been totally indirect and even unintentional, I'm not making any claims about that).

This is supported by mainstream historical views. Something doesn't have to be an original source, much less the original copy to be legitimate in determining historicity. This comes up over and over again in the study of history. No it's not proof, it's just stronger evidence than there is to the contrary and there isn't a compelling reason to doubt it. The independent copies agree with each other and the nature of the material makes it unlikely that it was doctored to its current form. Other historical sources confirm that Tacitus was a high ranking official, and other historical sources confirm that Rome kept decent records (of something that would have been an official action of the Roman government), meaning that he probably had more to go on than just rumors.

 

[AViking]

Yeah, if we can't get things documented to the "T", then the whole account is false.

This is why you aren't religious, because you're looking for every reason to doubt the account.

I'm not being picky at all. I recognize that I'm overly analytical but there is no evidence that Jesus existed outside of the bible.

Take a step back from Jesus and the bible. I think we can look at just about anything and judge whether it's possible, probable, or happened. Did Julius Caesar exist? All three can be answered in the affirmative. Did Jesus exist? Possible? Yes. Probable? Not really. Did it happen? Probably not. There's zero evidence and the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's just the way it is.

Now with that said you are free to have FAITH in Jesus. All power to you. I have faith that there is Alien life out there. I have no evidence. Is it probable? Statistically yes. Is it possible. Yes. Do they exist? I have faith that they do. I grant you your faith in Jesus.

Where I draw a firm line though is in trying to establish fact without evidence. I have zero evidence to support Alien life. NONE. I do not claim that there are aliens out there. You do claim that Jesus exists and that the bible is true.

That makes you irrational.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not being picky at all. I recognize that I'm overly analytical but there is no evidence that Jesus existed outside of the bible.

Did you read his link about Tacitus, or are you going to hand-wave that too?

 

[AViking]

You're making two totally different arguments here. You said outright there was no historic evidence that Jesus even existed, and you're saying that all of these miracles and stuff should have been documented. Whether or not the Biblical accounts accurately portray his life (something I don't believe in the slightest) is not material to the first claim. There is evidence for exactly what I said: a guy named Jesus was crucified in Judea and inspired some kind of religious movement (this inspiration could have been totally indirect and even unintentional, I'm not making any claims about that).

This is supported by mainstream historical views. Something doesn't have to be an original source, much less the original copy to be legitimate in determining historicity. This comes up over and over again in the study of history. No it's not proof, it's just stronger evidence than there is to the contrary and there isn't a compelling reason to doubt it. The independent copies agree with each other and the nature of the material makes it unlikely that it was doctored to its current form. Other historical sources confirm that Tacitus was a high ranking official, and other historical sources confirm that Rome kept decent records (of something that would have been an official action of the Roman government), meaning that he probably had more to go on than just rumors.

With all that said how do you feel about the fact that he was born after the fact, it was supposedly written 80+ years after Jesus' death, and that the copies of the text are written over 1200 after Jesus died?

You honestly find that to be good evidence?

 

[AViking]

Did you read his link about Tacitus, or are you going to hand-wave that too?

I have addressed it multiple times.

 

[Retro Rob]

I have addressed it multiple times.

So if you don't have first hand accounts, then you don't believe it?

Then why do you seem to believe scholars who write about Jesus...oh...say 2000+ years after the fact when they say "X" didn't happen?

Those aren't first hand accounts.

 

[Exophase]

With all that said how do you feel about the fact that he was born after the fact, it was supposedly written 80+ years after Jesus' death, and that the copies of the text are written over 1200 after Jesus died?

You honestly find that to be good evidence?

Yes I find it good evidence, and I already explained why. Why are you holding such unusually strict standards to this particular piece of evidence? You sound really biased against the existence of Jesus. You do understand that believing Jesus existed doesn't make you a Christian, right? Do you really want to stand against mainstream secular historians on this?

You say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims made by Tacitus are far from extraordinary. You just can't separate the two.

 

[dphantom]

Yes I find it good evidence, and I already explained why. Why are you holding such unusually strict standards to this particular piece of evidence? You sound really biased against the existence of Jesus. You do understand that believing Jesus existed doesn't make you a Christian, right? Do you really want to stand against mainstream secular historians on this?

You say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims made by Tacitus are far from extraordinary. You just can't separate the two.

I have asked the very same question and received nothing but deflected replies that do everything to avoid acknowledging the historical existence of a entity known as Jesus from around 2000 years ago.

Each one denies the very existence of Jesus holding historical accounts of his existence to a level of proof not seen anywhere else. it is as if some atheists simply cannot acknowledge the life of Jesus - even taking the Divine nature out - because in some form perhaps it would threaten their very reason for being an atheist.

Why not acknowledge a man, itinerant preacher, lowly carpenter somehow became the catalyst for a religious revival and that is all he was? No they cannot do that. And unfortunately, none are really being honest about why they can't acknowledge historical records that Biblical scholars - Christian or otherwise - today find perfectly acceptable.

 

[AViking]

I am holding it to a higher standard because jesus is said to be the son of god, performed miracles, and so on. Is that not fair?

If all we are talking about is whether a carpenter existed then I suppose my answer to that is that I don't care. Also nobody else does either. Nobody was sitting around documenting that but they should have been documenting the greatest man to have ever existed.

We seem to be at an impasse since you believe in a text 1200 years after the fact and I don't find that to be good enough evidence. Especially considering it was written by someone who was not there, not born during the events and would have been writing about Jesus about 2 generations after the fact. Or is it more? Life expectancy back then was probably around 50 years right? So for someone to write about Jesus over 110 years after Jesus was born, and 80 years after he died, they would be roughly the equivalent of lets see, 4 generations removed assuming people had kids around the age of 20-25.

 

[Retro Rob]

I am holding it to a higher standard because jesus is said to be the son of god, performed miracles, and so on. Is that not fair?

If all we are talking about is whether a carpenter existed then I suppose my answer to that is that I don't care. Also nobody else does either. Nobody was sitting around documenting that but they should have been documenting the greatest man to have ever existed.

We seem to be at an impasse since you believe in a text 1200 years after the fact and I don't find that to be good enough evidence. Especially considering it was written by someone who was not there, not born during the events and would have been writing about Jesus about 2 generations after the fact. Or is it more? Life expectancy back then was probably around 50 years right? So for someone to write about Jesus over 110 years after Jesus was born, and 80 years after he died, they would be roughly the equivalent of lets see, 4 generations removed assuming people had kids around the age of 20-25.

I would really like a reply to this:

Then why do you seem to believe scholars who write about Jesus...oh...say 2000+ years after the fact when they say "X" didn't happen?

Those aren't first hand accounts.

 

[AViking]

I am actually not sure what you mean by that statement.

The way it works is that you require evidence. I'm not here to prove a negative if that's what you're trying to bait me with.

 

[Retro Rob]

I am actually not sure what you mean by that statement.

The way it works is that you require evidence. I'm not here to prove a negative if that's what you're trying to bait me with.

No, I am simply saying that you seem to want to nit-pick on the opinion that since everyone didn't write from an eye-witness standpoint, outside the Bible, you don't believe it. That's simply an unreasonable and hypocritical POV, and we believe many things from third, and fourth-hand accounts.

Secondly, you would believe a scholar (who ironically wrote "Jesus wasn't divine" 2000 years after) who also "wasn't contemporary" and likely got his information from a third-party passed down.

Why is that?

 

[AViking]

What scholar am I believing? What are you talking about?

We're talking about the son of god, miracles, etc and you keep ignoring it. If aliens arrive I am not going to believe it based on 1200 year old texts and no first hand accounts either.