If computers, cars, etc. have designers why not the universe?

[reallyscrued]

There is a lot that bothers me about your replies, but I will focus on this one because it is the most evidence of the power of faith you have brought forward so far.

Is it impossible to believe that the former caused the latter?
.

Yes, it is impossible to believe the 'faith in Christ' is truly the thing that helped him. Haven't you heard the same story from Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.?

Why is your story more credible than those that say 'faith in Allah/Yahweh/<insert-non-existent-deity-here> helped them' and they'd be lost without it?

Is it possible to be a moral person (by your standards) yet still be a nonbeliever?

 

[Braznor]

I repeat again, the laws of this universe are elegant enough to explain all of its creations and phenomenons within. The only thing that cannot be explained with the current laws of the universe yet is this universe itself, but everything within it can be understood and expressed in terms of laws we know now and can discover in the future.

The universe is not that big of a mystery and that point itself is very much irrelevant to our understanding of everything within it. The mystery of the origins of the universe should not be linked with the wonders of its creations within. Everything within it can be explained and understood in very easy terms of maths, physics and logic.

We do not need a egoistical creator nor do we need a merciful savior. Each and every man can save himself from ignorance if he strives to do so by the fruits of his own labor. Our inner salvation is in our very own hands, not the so called 'God' or his so called sons, avatars or prophets. Be not a follower, instead be a prophet of universal truth in your own right. It is very much possible.

 

[Gibsons]

Each and every man can save himself from ignorance if he strives to do so by the fruits of his own labor.

This isn't true, just watch a little reality TV.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Yes, it is impossible to believe the 'faith in Christ' is truly the thing that helped him.

It seems to me that the process of "faith in Christ" as a change agent in someone's life does not preclude faith in TFSM (or your own-most-potentiality) from changing your life: Maybe you're assuming that I'm arguing that there's one-true-right-way to have faith?

That said, I've done a LOT of research on the power of narrative and story when it comes to identity and, from that perspective, I can say that the messianic narrative is a useful way to re-story one's lived-experiences.

If you look at my argument, i'm saying the one-true-right-way of being, is being exactly who you are: unless you are unhappy with that, and if you are then I know of a way to change that (If someone of some other path would like to lay-claim to similar knowledge then I do not begrudge them that).

Is it possible to be a moral person (by your standards) yet still be a nonbeliever?

Not only can you be, but MOST of the time "non-believers" are more moral people. The pompous asshole-ness that comes from being a "christian" that's not honestly had any deep-need for Christ is probably the cause of many of our social ills.

Society and Christendom would be better off if the default assumption was non-theism but there was no ridicule from society if someone converted to whatever faith they found resonated best for them.

No scources...no validity.
No arms no coockie.

I knew you would bring on excuses, but not soruces....typical intellectual dishonesty in action.

you offer no sources as well; The difference is that when you presume something to be common knowledge I give deference to your point and make it incumbent upon myself to counter the best formulation of your argument that I can find.

Doing otherwise is what's intellectually dishonest.

no sources from year zero to year 30ish...gotcha

Jesus died about 30AD; so there wasn't much to write about until around then. After that doctor Luke conducted semi-structure interviews with the various parties involved and went forward with document analysis of his own so as to formulate his double-book of Luke and Acts.

It is likely that many of these documents, while lost, are preserved in the historical-narrative form (using different historiological motifs than we do) created in these two books. A minority of scholars place the creation of this book at 4 years after the death of Jesus, though it is more likely that the books simply draw on texts that surfaced about that time and was written about 40 years after the death of Jesus.

After about 100AD we find chuck-norris level hyperbole in books written about Jesus; most likely because it is around then, some 67 years after the death of Jesus, that the bulk of the eye-witnesses to the events died off and thus were unable to keep in-check the mythology.

It is for this reason that I dismiss texts written after 100AD.

bibliography

Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative science quarterly, 106-126.

Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as" Tamara-Land". Academy of Management Journal, 997-1035.

Esler, P. F. (Ed.). (1989). Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The social and political motivations of Lucan theology (Vol. 57). Cambridge University Press.

Kelber, W. H. (1983). The oral and the written gospel: The hermeneutics of speaking and writing in the synoptic tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Indiana University Press.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of personality and social psychology, 3(5), 551.

Tannehill, R. C. (1994). Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: The Acts of the Apostles: A Literary Interpretation (Vol. 2). Fortress Pr.

Weick, K. E. (2006). Faith, evidence, and action: Better guesses in an unknowable world. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1723-1736.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. WW Norton & Company.

Yolles, M. (2007). The dynamics of narrative and antenarrative and their relation to story. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(1), 74-94.

Humanism

There's a lot to be accepted and admired regarding what you're saying.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So, again, what's the link between pre 70AD texts and FUD/FUD avoidance? (I can't argue about this unsupported assumption because I don't know why you are holding it)

So no sources....gotcha.
Even though the romans was notorious for keeping records...the "jebuz" lived..and die...and all forget....until much later.
And those soruces were copycatting older myth and legends...

I have a piece of land on Mars for sale...you sound like the right "type" of buyer?

BTW, a mental disorder can make the patient be happy.
Dosn't mean it's a good thing...just as with superstition (aka religion).
Nothing but a cognetive virus.....nice fail.l.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So no sources....gotcha.
Even though the romans was notorious for keeping records...the "jebuz" lived..and die...and all forget....until much later.
And those soruces were copycatting older myth and legends...

I have a piece of land on Mars for sale...you sound like the right "type" of buyer?

BTW, a mental disorder can make the patient be happy.
Dosn't mean it's a good thing...just as with superstition (aka religion).
Nothing but a cognetive virus.....nice fail.l.

Sources provided now.

It's very easy to mock that which you misapprehend. Your "..." comments are the Atheist equivalent of someone 'disproving' evolution by saying "my grand pa' an't no monkey".

I have no doubt you are intellectually capable, as the average IQ here is around 130. Which means either you feel "in the mood to troll" or you honestly haven't got any way of defending your position and so you've resorted to making yourself look foolish in an attempt to defend how you identify yourself.

 

[SP33Demon]

1) In the first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God's existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument.[19][20] Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work.[21] Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.
The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[19]
Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[19]
The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.[19]
Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good &#8211; a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.[19]
The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.[19]

2) Charles Taylor contends that the real is whatever will not go away. If we cannot reduce talk about God to anything else, or replace it, or prove it false, then perhaps God is as real as anything else.[15]

3) In George Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge of 1710, he argued that a "naked thought" cannot exist, and that a perception was a thought; therefore only minds could be proven to exist, since all else was merely an idea conveyed by a perception. This viewpoint has been used in popular fiction, including The Matrix movie series. From this Berkeley argued that the universe is based upon observation and is non-objective. However, he noted that the universe includes "ideas" not perceptible to mankind (or not always perceptible), and that there must therefore exist an omniscient superobserver, which perceives such things. Berkeley considered this proof of the existence of the Christian God.

4) No thought is original. Everything that is typed in this thread has already been thought of before.

 

[Brigandier]

1) In the first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God's existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument.[19][20] Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work.[21] Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.
The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[19]
Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[19]
The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.[19]
Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good – a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.[19]
The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.[19]

2) Charles Taylor contends that the real is whatever will not go away. If we cannot reduce talk about God to anything else, or replace it, or prove it false, then perhaps God is as real as anything else.[15]

3) In George Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge of 1710, he argued that a "naked thought" cannot exist, and that a perception was a thought; therefore only minds could be proven to exist, since all else was merely an idea conveyed by a perception. This viewpoint has been used in popular fiction, including The Matrix movie series. From this Berkeley argued that the universe is based upon observation and is non-objective. However, he noted that the universe includes "ideas" not perceptible to mankind (or not always perceptible), and that there must therefore exist an omniscient superobserver, which perceives such things. Berkeley considered this proof of the existence of the Christian God.

4) No thought is original. Everything that is typed in this thread has already been thought of before.

The only thing I disagree with is the unmoved mover, matter in motion has momentum, and the only thing movement requires is prior movement.

 

[Lonbjerg]

It seems to me that the process of "faith in Christ" as a change agent in someone's life does not preclude faith in TFSM (or your own-most-potentiality) from changing your life: Maybe you're assuming that I'm arguing that there's one-true-right-way to have faith?

That said, I've done a LOT of research on the power of narrative and story when it comes to identity and, from that perspective, I can say that the messianic narrative is a useful way to re-story one's lived-experiences.

If you look at my argument, i'm saying the one-true-right-way of being, is being exactly who you are: unless you are unhappy with that, and if you are then I know of a way to change that (If someone of some other path would like to lay-claim to similar knowledge then I do not begrudge them that).

Not only can you be, but MOST of the time "non-believers" are more moral people. The pompous asshole-ness that comes from being a "christian" that's not honestly had any deep-need for Christ is probably the cause of many of our social ills.

Society and Christendom would be better off if the default assumption was non-theism but there was no ridicule from society if someone converted to whatever faith they found resonated best for them.



you offer no sources as well; The difference is that when you presume something to be common knowledge I give deference to your point and make it incumbent upon myself to counter the best formulation of your argument that I can find.

Doing otherwise is what's intellectually dishonest.

Jesus died about 30AD; so there wasn't much to write about until around then. After that doctor Luke conducted semi-structure interviews with the various parties involved and went forward with document analysis of his own so as to formulate his double-book of Luke and Acts.

It is likely that many of these documents, while lost, are preserved in the historical-narrative form (using different historiological motifs than we do) created in these two books. A minority of scholars place the creation of this book at 4 years after the death of Jesus, though it is more likely that the books simply draw on texts that surfaced about that time and was written about 40 years after the death of Jesus.

After about 100AD we find chuck-norris level hyperbole in books written about Jesus; most likely because it is around then, some 67 years after the death of Jesus, that the bulk of the eye-witnesses to the events died off and thus were unable to keep in-check the mythology.

It is for this reason that I dismiss texts written after 100AD.

bibliography

Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative science quarterly, 106-126.

Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as" Tamara-Land". Academy of Management Journal, 997-1035.

Esler, P. F. (Ed.). (1989). Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The social and political motivations of Lucan theology (Vol. 57). Cambridge University Press.

Kelber, W. H. (1983). The oral and the written gospel: The hermeneutics of speaking and writing in the synoptic tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Indiana University Press.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of personality and social psychology, 3(5), 551.

Tannehill, R. C. (1994). Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: The Acts of the Apostles: A Literary Interpretation (Vol. 2). Fortress Pr.

Weick, K. E. (2006). Faith, evidence, and action: Better guesses in an unknowable world. Organization Studies, 27(11), 1723-1736.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. WW Norton & Company.

Yolles, M. (2007). The dynamics of narrative and antenarrative and their relation to story. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(1), 74-94.

There's a lot to be accepted and admired regarding what you're saying.

So you try and hide the facts there is NO sources from his alleged lifetime...gotcha.

Any more dribble, hogwash and smoke&mirrors to cover up that fact?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

4) No thought is original. Everything that is typed in this thread has already been thought of before.

Actually, the apologetics i've developed are a confluence of new psychological and historical research which has lead me to a post-structuralist twist on the christian universalist argument as situated from a kantian deontological ethical stance.

And if you've not heard the idea then it's new to you!

So you try and hide the facts there is NO sources from his alleged lifetime...

And why would, before the death of Jesus, there be records of him? It's not like we have copies of the 0ad-33ad roman census and the importance of his death is made paramount only after his resurrection.

If you'd like to address what we do know then have a second look at this argumentation:

Jesus died about 30AD; so there wasn't much to write about until around then. After that doctor Luke conducted semi-structure interviews with the various parties involved and went forward with document analysis of his own so as to formulate his double-book of Luke (the life of jesus) and Acts (the early church).

It is likely that many of these documents, while lost, are preserved in the historical-narrative form (using different historiological motifs than we do) created in these two books. A minority of scholars place the creation of this book at 4 years after the death of Jesus, though it is more likely that the books simply draw on texts that surfaced about that time and was written about 40 years after the death of Jesus.


After about 100AD we find chuck-norris level hyperbole in books written about Jesus; most likely because it is around then, some 67 years after the death of Jesus, that the bulk of the eye-witnesses to the events died off and thus were unable to keep in-check the mythology.

You see, I am agreeing with your point about the invalidity of documentation after a particular amount of time: What I am questioning is your assumption regarding how long after Jesus' death documentation could maintain reasonable levels of validity.

My argument is that, within the confines of the stylistics of a historical-narrative, the book of luke and acts, as authored by the most educated apostle doctor luke, offer as valid a documentation of the life, sayings, and acts of Jesus and the early church as one could reasonably expect.

Could he have made some shit up? Of course. But since the catholic church was another 1-200 years off and the books were written as an independent project, it is unlikely that what was written disagreed with the documents and observations of eyewitnesses.

The reason for the lateness of the documentation is that literacy was very rare in that day and the primary means of transmitting information was via inter-observer agreed-upon verbal re-tellings. Further, the Christian eschatology of the day held that it was unlikely that that generation would see death by old age before the return of Christ. It was only later, when it became apparent that some were dying of old-age that it became apparent that written documentation was needed to keep the narrative in-line with the observations of those that were there to see/hear what went on.

 

[Lonbjerg]

And why would, before the death of Jesus, there be records of him? It's not like we have copies of the 0ad-33ad roman census and the importance of his death is made paramount only after his resurrection.

So a man "ressurected"...and the romasn just ignored it...LOL

Making up excuses is the way of the religious retard pushing reality aside and letting their mental defect filter reality.

 

[Paul98]

To answer the question, No.

The problem I see with many of these questions people ask isn't the question. It's how it's framed and the ability of the person to understand the answer. Most people have very little knowledge of physics, mathematics, and science in general. Yet many who read some book or see some movie or special about some physics then think they understand what they are talking about. This leads to much confusion and wrong ideas about how things actually work. It also gives the false sense that they know what they are talking about, and they end up defending their position no matter what instead of trying to learn. Sorry to sorta get off topic, but knowing if someone wants to learn or not is a good thing to know.

 

[Lonbjerg]

And people are forgetting the +20 gosples cut out of the bible...because....they were to hard to sell to people...

The "noncanonical books" were cut out by the religious spindoctors...it's all lies, deceit...for power over man.

Pathethic.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

o a man "ressurected"...and the romasn just ignored it...LOL

An entire nation of romans ... and the romans just ignored it... LOL

Where's the 0-100AD roman census?

And people are forgetting the +20 gosples cut out of the bible...because....they were to hard to sell to people...

I've laid out why post 100ad 'gospels' are of questionable validity.

Good job ignoring every point made and, instead, focusing on simply re-stating what you take as a given. Again, you've offered the atheist intelectual equivalent of "Lucifer buried them dinosaur bones to trick ya!"

Try addressing the argument Sr.

within the confines of the stylistics of a historical-narrative, the book of luke and acts, as authored by the most educated apostle doctor luke, offer as valid a documentation of the life, sayings, and acts of Jesus and the early church as one could reasonably expect.

Could he have made some shit up? Of course. But since the catholic church was another 100-200 years off and the books were written as an independent project, it is unlikely that what was written disagrees with the documents and observations of eyewitnesses.

Where is CT? I want to try my new apologetics out on someone i've built some respect with...

it's all lies, deceit...for power over man.

I ascribe to Marx's historical materialism. I agree that is how Christ was used starting at about 250ish Ad. But as for the "missing gospels" they come from After 100AD, and suffer from chuck-Noris syndrom because they were written by people without the grounding of eye-witness inter-observer agreement.

Even if the council of Nicea didn't make them 'non-canonical' I would have to argue against them.

 

[rchiu]

I repeat again, the laws of this universe are elegant enough to explain all of its creations and phenomenons within. The only thing that cannot be explained with the current laws of the universe yet is this universe itself, but everything within it can be understood and expressed in terms of laws we know now and can discover in the future.

The universe is not that big of a mystery and that point itself is very much irrelevant to our understanding of everything within it. The mystery of the origins of the universe should not be linked with the wonders of its creations within. Everything within it can be explained and understood in very easy terms of maths, physics and logic.

We do not need a egoistical creator nor do we need a merciful savior. Each and every man can save himself from ignorance if he strives to do so by the fruits of his own labor. Our inner salvation is in our very own hands, not the so called 'God' or his so called sons, avatars or prophets. Be not a follower, instead be a prophet of universal truth in your own right. It is very much possible.

Well it's very arrogant for anyone to think we know the law of the universe and can use it to explain all of its creations and phenomenons within, when we have not set one step outside of our planet system. We explored what? 0.00000000000000000000001% of this universe? How the hell do we claim we know the law of the universe when we explored so little and we are confined to our own planet system?

I am not supporting either side, but religion would not be far fetched if you replace this creator (as in person/being) with a force (law/natural universal order). It's up to anyone to follow themselves, certain deity, certain force or law and order.

Bottom line, we human knows so little it's pathetic. So stop criticizing other side like you know better. You do whatever that make you feel good and your life meaningful. Just don't force others to follow your view or think your view is the only truth.

 

[Braznor]

Bottom line, we human knows so little it's pathetic. So stop criticizing other side like you know better. You do whatever that make you feel good and your life meaningful. Just don't force others to follow your view or think your view is the only truth.

My point has always been that we know nothing in the terms of the totality of the real 'truth' My point was not to let ones bias clouded logical judgment. I made many mistakes myself, you can say 'bias' of mine. But thanks people everywhere , even here, I was able to recognize them and move forward. My point here was to prove the fallacy of attack other people's thoughts by the standards of others here, especially moral ones.

If you have an idea, we should be able to express and if it is wrong, then we must frame the solution to why its wrong without malice towards the original idea or its creator. Thats the true scientific spirit. Learning more to increase knowledge and using that knowledge to understand newer perspectives is the essence of free thought.

There should be a philosophy section. Philosophy is one of the cornerstones of science. It will be very logical to have one. Philosophy with a political context can be left to P&N and philosophy with real world news can be left to OT. Religion can be entirely contained in Philosophy.

 

[Lonbjerg]

An entire nation of romans ... and the romans just ignored it... LOL

Where's the 0-100AD roman census?


I've laid out why post 100ad 'gospels' are of questionable validity.

Good job ignoring every point made and, instead, focusing on simply re-stating what you take as a given. Again, you've offered the atheist intelectual equivalent of "Lucifer buried them dinosaur bones to trick ya!"

Try addressing the argument Sr.




Where is CT? I want to try my new apologetics out on someone i've built some respect with...

I ascribe to Marx's historical materialism. I agree that is how Christ was used starting at about 250ish Ad. But as for the "missing gospels" they come from After 100AD, and suffer from chuck-Noris syndrom because they were written by people without the grounding of eye-witness inter-observer agreement.

Even if the council of Nicea didn't make them 'non-canonical' I would have to argue against them.

There is no gosples from his lifetime...there is no SOURCES...it's like claiming that the Donald Duck magazine is evidence for that Donald Duck is real...


I'm amazed at the lies needed to save people's superstition...and the lack of intelligence by the defenders of christianity.

Besides, "Jebuz" is nothing more than old myths put on new cans....a simple copycat...but I guess weak minds need their comformt-teddy...

 

[Arkitech]

ahahahaha

Torah predates the Bible.

so do many religious text from Egypt.

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

I was refuting Arkitech's words

"Couple of interesting facts, the bible predates all other holy books/writings. "

didn't bother with the rest of it.

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

The Torah is the first 5 books of the bible.

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

 

[Dr. Zaus]

There is no gosples from his lifetime...there is no SOURCES...it's like claiming that the Donald Duck magazine is evidence for that Donald Duck is real...


I'm amazed at the lies needed to save people's superstition...and the lack of intelligence by the defenders of christianity.

Besides, "Jebuz" is nothing more than old myths put on new cans....a simple copycat...but I guess weak minds need their comformt-teddy...

I withdraw my comments; based on the intellectual rigor and astounding depth of your thinking I have no choice but to agree with your point.

Your point is that you're a mildly retarded illiterate, right?

 

[sdifox]

The Torah is the first 5 books of the bible.

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

So, you borrowed from Judaism? Or is it the same thing?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I withdraw my comments; based on the intellectual rigor and astounding depth of your thinking I have no choice but to agree with your point.

Your point is that you're a mildly retarded illiterate, right?

What is wrong with comparing Jesus to Donald Duck? They are both anthropomorphisms that are used for entertainment or to teach lessons/morals to children. Anthropomorphism has been around since ancient times and is extremely popular even in modern times. Some people just take the Jesus stories too far...

 

[OverVolt]

How could a good God allow for evil?

Because its necessary for us to exist at all.

 

[Arkitech]

So, you borrowed from Judaism? Or is it the same thing?

Same thing, before the bible was complete, Israelites studied from the Torah.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

What is wrong with comparing Jesus to Donald Duck? They are both anthropomorphisms that are used for entertainment or to teach lessons/morals to children. Anthropomorphism has been around since ancient times and is extremely popular even in modern times. Some people just take the Jesus stories too far...

What's wrong with addressing any honest point made instead of obfuscating and tap-dancing?

Maybe the intellectually impotent respond because anyone with more than half a brain knows not to get involved in these asinine discussions which devolve into cosmological wanking-off.

.

After about 100AD we find chuck-norris level hyperbole in books written about Jesus; most likely because it is around then, some 67 years after the death of Jesus, that the bulk of the eye-witnesses to the events died off and thus were unable to keep in-check the mythology.

Could he have made some shit up? Of course. But since the catholic church was another 1-200 years off and the books were written as an independent project, it is unlikely that what was written disagreed with the documents and observations of eyewitnesses.

You see, I have already addressed this point AnonymouseUser. Yes, there was a level of caricature which turned into hyperbole and then out-right silly ness. But this started after the eye-witnesses died and couldn't keep the story in check any longer.

At the time eye-witnesses agreeing together about what happened was the definition of rigorous documentation.

So yes, what you are talking about did happen: But it seems historically unlikely that pre 100AD documents contain this to an extensive degree because, otherwise, the stories would, could and should have been much more fantastic and divergent.

 

[sdifox]

Same thing, before the bible was complete, Israelites studied from the Torah.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

So, who is right and who wrong?