what are peoples thoughts on Jesus?

[freeservant]

Soooooo...no new, mind shattering proofs of Jesus' existence.  Check.

I am happy to point out that no new evidence is needed for something that is sufficiently established.  Sufficiently established enough so the new believers come to Christ every day.  


Oh and given how this evidence is sufficient to spread all over the world and grow Christianity in amazing ways considering all the opposition I don't think new is needed to win hearts and minds to Christ.

You may want to look at the link I posted.

Ad populum fallacy.

I was not establishing anything other than a minimalist sufficiency.  No new facts are needed is the only point I make.

It could be a fallacy if...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... elief.html

I was appealing to belief but belief is not the issue as only newness and sufficiency is.

Yet even by blinding yourself by use of fallacy you should be able to see that if we all believe there is sufficient evidence for man landing on the Moon your use of a logical fallacy fails if common the common agreed to thing has minimally sufficient evidence.  So the point still stands be it evidence of a moon landing or evidence of a true first century individual that existed at that time.  No new evidence is needed and it only need be sufficient.

[PoopShoot]

New converts are rarely gained on evidence, but rather on emotional appeals.

[DropLogic]

^ bravo    to radical
Above is the essence of the Atheist/skeptic/etc point of view.  The burden of proof is not on us to prove that something didn't exist, when its existence has yet to be proven in the first place.  If there was any physical evidence of Jesus' existence, then sure, the skeptics would have to prove that that evidence was somehow falsified or incorrect.  This isn't the case.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was not establishing anything other than a minimalist sufficiency.  No new facts are needed is the only point I make.

It could be a fallacy if...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... elief.html

I was appealing to belief but belief is not the issue as only newness and sufficiency is.

Given that you've presented no supporting evidence, this appeal-to-belief fallacy holds.  However many people hold with Christianity, or however fast it spread, is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.  After all, in Maine one could simply go to a tackle shop and ask about the fishing law, or one can look up the law in a library.  That is not the case with Jesus.  Therefore, your only support is the number of adherents.  That renders your argument fallacious.

Yet even by blinding yourself by use of fallacy you should be able to see that if we all believe there is sufficient evidence for man landing on the Moon your use of a logical fallacy fails if common the common agreed to thing has minimally sufficient evidence.

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary ought the evidence be.  The claim that Jesus existed is acceptable, to my mind; it's possible that he was a historical personage, although I haven't studied the issue as deeply as others here, apparently.  However, evidence of his godhood, and resurrection, would need to be undebatably firm.  It is not, however.

So the point still stands be it evidence of a moon landing or evidence of a true first century individual that existed at that time.  No new evidence is needed and it only need be sufficient.

Which, in this case, it isn't.  Using the Moon landing as an example: if one had a sufficiently powerful telescope, and knew where to look, one could see the abandoned LEMs.  No such firm evidence appears for Jesus Christ.

Finally, doesn't searching for evidence of Jesus's existence reveal a certain lack of faith?

[freeservant]

~~~snip~~ not fairly addressing my point about minimal suficiency ~~~snip~~
Finally, doesn't searching for evidence of Jesus's existence reveal a certain lack of faith?

My point still stands and not everybody believes in the moon landing, are you not familiar with this?

The skeptic could contend that the telescope is ringed.

Do you know of the The Münchhausen Trilemma?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma

and in regard to Faith it is about trust:

: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Given the skeptics trilemma and your strong conviction about Jesus or rather the non-existence there of are you properly strong in your conviction?  Or would an actual effort to address the minimally sufficient evidence be a problem for you?

[Sophus]

I was not establishing anything other than a minimalist sufficiency.  No new facts are needed is the only point I make.

It could be a fallacy if...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... elief.html

I was appealing to belief but belief is not the issue as only newness and sufficiency is.

Yet even by blinding yourself by use of fallacy you should be able to see that if we all believe there is sufficient evidence for man landing on the Moon your use of a logical fallacy fails if common the common agreed to thing has minimally sufficient evidence.  So the point still stands be it evidence of a moon landing or evidence of a true first century individual that existed at that time.  No new evidence is needed and it only need be sufficient.

New evidence? How about any evidence to begin with? Jesus is a bunch of ancient hearsay that some people finally decided to write down.... in conflicting version of events. Writing something down does not make it true. And the historicity of Jesus is nothing short of clouded. There is no consensus on his existence or lack of or whether or certainly not that he performed miracles.

[Lapsed Lurker]

Finally, doesn't searching for evidence of Jesus's existence reveal a certain lack of faith?

in regard to Faith it is about trust:

: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Right, but you conveniently (and hypocritically) ignore the fact that the Bible has the following to say about faith (as the Bible defines it)-

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)
“Faith, you see, can only come from hearing the message, and the message is the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17)

So, as Thumpalumpacus pointed out, searching for evidence in order to believe in Jesus reveals a distinct lack of faith.

Whilst searching for evidence before actually forming a belief is the reasonable way to go about things, doing so actually runs counter to the Christian basis for faith as revealed in scripture. That Christian faith is about believing without evidence is no more clearly demonstrated than  in the story of Doubting Thomas, in John 20. “Then Jesus told [Thomas], "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (verse 29) In other words- "Blessed are those who believe without evidence."

Perhaps this is why you find the path so hard when Jesus promised in Matt 11:30 that it will be easy? You lack the faith necessary to receive the Spirit so that you can be yoked together with God to plough the straight path? (Or perhaps you haven't received the Spirit because the promises in the Bible are complete bunkum. )

[DropLogic]

Lurker, welcome and nice work.  Fighting words the The Word.  Well done.

[Lapsed Lurker]

Lurker, welcome and nice work.

Thanks  

[Thumpalumpacus]

~~~snip~~ not fairly addressing my point about minimal suficiency ~~~snip~~
Finally, doesn't searching for evidence of Jesus's existence reveal a certain lack of faith?

If you're going to allege unfairness on my part, kindly don't snip the fucking example out.  Evidence your charge or withdraw it, if you have any honor.

My point still stands and not everybody believes in the moon landing, are you not familiar with this?

That doesn't, however, mean that there is credible evidence for Jesus.  

The skeptic could contend that the telescope is ringed.

The skeptic oftens makes retarded contentions.  That is not evidence that Jesus existed, or was divine.

Given the skeptics trilemma and your strong conviction about Jesus or rather the non-existence there of are you properly strong in your conviction?

Hey, perhaps you should take an English class.  I clearly stated that it is possible to my mind that Jesus could be a historical personage.

Or would an actual effort to address the minimally sufficient evidence be a problem for you?

When you present evidence, I'll address it.  All you've presented so far is (il)logic.  And reality doesn't comport to what man says it must be, no matter your bleating.

[tymygy]

Lurker, welcome and nice work.  Fighting words the The Word.  Well done.

haha I'd agree, very nice first post.  

[Sophus]

Lurker, welcome and nice work.  Fighting words the The Word.  Well done.

haha I'd agree, very nice first post.  

Indeed. Well done. Relates very well to the Does Atheism Have Faith thread right next to this one.

[The Magic Pudding]

Instead of just nailing up Jesus, if the Romans got truly serious, and "tore the body into fourteen pieces and scattered them throughout the land" would Jesus have been able to resurrect and scare his disciples?
Would our Easter egg hunts take a more interesting form?

[Jac3510]

“Faith, you see, can only come from hearing the message, and the message is the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17)

What translation is that? It's not the KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, YLT, ASV, RSV, NKJV, 21KJV, NKJV . . . it's not even the NLT or the Message for the love of God. The word you emphasize isn't even implied in Greek. Here's the KJV, since it appears you used it for Heb 11:1:

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The "so" here is ara, which carries the idea of "therefore" or "consequently." He's concluding an argument that goes back to 10:13:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

The point is obvious enough. You are saved by believing in Jesus, but in order to believe in Him you have to hear about Him, but in order to hear about Him someone has to tell you about Him. So believing in Him happens when you hear about Him from someone else. And this, by the way, is an important part of the larger context in which Rom 9-11 is dealing with a section on Israel and how they are related to the largely Gentile church.

The passage does not say that faith "only" comes by hearing. Paul is making a point about the need for evangelism, especially as it relates to Israel. If we don't tell people, how will they come to know? And what are we to tell them? We are to give them evidence so that they might believe. "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men" (2 Cor. 5:11).

Beyond all that, the English definition of "faith" has nothing to do with the Hebrew or Greek words (aman and pistis, respectively). Both refer to certainty, with or without evidence. If you are certain that something is true, more literally, if you can declare a person, promise, statement, or fact trustworthy or reliable, you have pistis or aman. Translate that however you want. If you don't like the English word "faith," use another word. But to say that those words mean "belief without evidence" is absolutely mistaken. One passage is sufficient to prove that point:

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side,

I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:24-31, NIV)[/list]
Notice the underlined passages. Thomas received a report that Jesus was alive, but he refused to believe (pistis). He demanded evidence, a personal experience that he could not deny. Jesus gave it to him, and upon receiving that evidence, he believed (pistis). Jesus then said that he believed on the basis of seeing Jesus, but people who believed without seeing would be more greatly blessed (same word in both cases: pistis). John then comments that he recorded this story, among others, so that the reader would believe (same word again: pistis). In other words, John has provided evidence for his case in the form of eye-witness testimony.

Now, you may be like Thomas, and such evidence may be insufficient for you. As I have said before, we can talk about the veracity of the evidence later. For now, I am only pointing out that to argue that faith is belief in absence of evidence is absurd, because the Bible itself clearly rejects such a notion.

In sum: faith is not belief in absence of evidence - it is the considering of a person, promise, statement, or fact as true, trustworthy, and reliable. Whatever degree of evidence that plays into your declaring something true is irrelevant to the definition itself. Some require a lot of evidence before they come to faith. Some require less. But everyone needs to at least be told about (in some form or fashion) the statement before they can decide whether or not it is true, trustworthy, and reliable.

[i_am_i]

The point is obvious enough. You are saved by believing in Jesus, but in order to believe in Him you have to hear about Him, but in order to hear about Him someone has to tell you about Him. So believing in Him happens when you hear about Him from someone else.

Believing in Him with a capital H happens when you hear about Him with a capital H from someone else? Tell me, then, how long does it take for one to come to believe in Him with a capital H after one hears about Him with a capital H from someone else? Is it supposed to happen right away or does it take a couple of days?

Is Jesus the only thing one is supposed to believe in when they hear about Jesus from someone else? One should be skeptical about everything else, like, say, believing what the Gutterguard guy is trying to sell you, but one should right away, straight off the bat, believe in Jesus because someone else tells him about it, is that right?

When is it okay for one to be discerning, for one to question, for one to, as they say, smell a rat? Any time except when you hear about Jesus from someone else?

Believing in Jesus because someone else told you about Jesus is a good thing, is that correct? Is this what you're saying here?