Happy Atheist Forum

Simple question...maybe. What are your takes on it?

Obviously mine is that he was Lord, so that is where 1 of those votes comes from. If you don't mind telling what you put and why I would be thrilled.

Trick question. Sort of.

Option 1 would be better if it said, "He never existed as the Bible depicts him". I think most non-Christians will say there was a historical Jesus (or Joshua or whatever you would like to call him). It's fairly obvious that the Jesus profile we have today is heavily taken from Apollonius of Tyana.

QuoteThe divine Jesus was based on older, mythic "savior figures" - such as Thor, Balder, Deva tat, Dionysus, Mithras, Bacchus and Horus - and argues that these figures shared most of a set of key characteristics with Jesus, including being born of a virgin on December 25, being killed on a cross or tree, being visited by Magi from the East, riding donkeys into the city, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, etc. Flemming accuses Christian leaders of being reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks, the idea that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic person.

Jesus's life as a living person can be disproven by the fact that Paul seemed unaware of Jesus's life despite writing shortly after Jesus was supposed to have died, with Jesus's biography first provided by the Gospels of Mark, John, Matthew, and Luke, written around the end of the first century A.D. The film suggests that modern Christians aren't taught about early history of their religion because doing so would call the historicity of Jesus into question. Wiki for The God Who Wasn't There (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There).

That's a good point, I wish I had thought of that before making the poll. Where do I find works by Apollonius of Tyana and the evidence that what he said was true.

Quote from: "Titan"Simple question...maybe. What are your takes on it?

Obviously mine is that he was Lord, so that is where 1 of those votes comes from. If you don't mind telling what you put and why I would be thrilled.

Maybe he existed maybe he didn't, Jesus after all would have been a common enough name at the time and it would be arguably easier to assume the myth is based on a real character but there were a number of pre-existing myths with very similar features so it is as likely that he never existed at all. Add to that the fact that there is no hard evidence for his existence and you have my stance on the matter.

Ultimately however I admit I say he never existed because it throws up a problem my theist opponents must defeat or admit before moving on to the claims they want to make (in essence a debate ploy but a valid one IMO).

It will doubtless come as no surprise that I voted "He never existed"

Kyu

Guys, before we continue please know that correlation does not imply causation.

Quote from: "Titan"Guys, before we continue please know that correlation does not imply causation.

Assume I'm thick (sorry but I'm no philosopher) ... what relevance does that have?

Kyu

Because Christian doctrine has a similar story to another doctrine does not imply that one brought about the other.

Quote from: "Titan"Because Christian doctrine has a similar story to another doctrine does not imply that one brought about the other.

I still don't get it it, what other doctrine?

Kyu

The one curiosity was talking about. For instance, just because the flood story in the Biblical text is similar to the Babylonian one does not mean that the Biblical story evolved FROM the Babylonian one.

Quote from: "Titan"The one curiosity was talking about. For instance, just because the flood story in the Biblical text is similar to the Babylonian one does not mean that the Biblical story evolved FROM the Babylonian one.

Nor the other way around. That's what all those other wonderful, third-party historical documents are for.  

Quote from: "Titan"The one curiosity was talking about. For instance, just because the flood story in the Biblical text is similar to the Babylonian one does not mean that the Biblical story evolved FROM the Babylonian one.

Depends which one came first I suppose ... virgin birth tales pre-dated the bible therefore the claim that the virgin birth is unique and/or whatever is garbage.

Kyu

I'd say, it doesn't matter what you answer. It's entirely plausible that Christ, as depicted in the books of the Apostles, was an amalgam, synthesis of Old Testament prophecy, Greek Mystery Cult figures, such as Orpheus, and so-called 'Savior God'-mythology of which had been in circulation since ancient Egypt, if not earlier. Or, he could have been exactly as the Apostles say he was. There's no way to prove or disprove at this time, but archeological discoveries constantly fill in the missing pieces.

What's important is that whether historical fact or Christian 'Myth', the sage teachings are timeless and priceless. Any group of people who want to call themselves 'Christians' and truly live by the essence of the teachings of Christian doctrine are moral, decent, and righteous people by any standard of any era.  To Christians, it's a matter of Faith. But even if you discount the entire religion as contrived and myth, you can still see the merit in the teachings and value of constructing individual lives, families, communities, nations, and even a larger 'Christendom' around such beliefs and philosophies. I'm talking about the core tenets, not the 'Heaven and Hell', Physical Resurrection, Pentacost, Trinity, etc., etc., etc. Let Christians believe in and practice their core tenets, but I'd say when some go over the line and actively pray for Armageddon, Rapture, and all of that, then I'd take them to task.

QuoteDepends which one came first I suppose ... virgin birth tales pre-dated the bible therefore the claim that the virgin birth is unique and/or whatever is garbage.

No, it does not depend on which came first. You have to not only take into account geographical barriers to any possible correlation but you also have to understand the progression of mythological ideas from true events and the divergence of oral recounts and written texts.

QuoteAny group of people who want to call themselves 'Christians' and truly live by the essence of the teachings of Christian doctrine are moral, decent, and righteous people by any standard of any era

Well, technically the Roman Empire didn't agree with this. History has that pretty well established. If you want I think I have some quotes by Tacitus and some other Roman authors.

I will specify what I think of Jesus: He probably existed but he was a mortal, he was not God or our Lord and he couldn't perform miracles. I do not believe miracles are possible at all. He was a good man for the times, but backward for todays times. Since he approved of slavery for example. And there were perhaps ancient Greeks who were more moral than him.  Also Jesus of course did not invent the idea of 'The Golden Rule', many knew of it before he did. Socrates knew of it for example.

I put he was a good teacher. Whether he existed or not, he did teach people good lessons. Can't specify any as I don't know the Bible, but I know that he did, at least in the story.

I will say, though, that I don't really think that he existed. If he did, I think he was schizophrenic, but that's just my opinion.

Improbable which verse on slavery are you referencing. Because I am pretty sure you are taking it out of context.

I'm agnostic as to whether he existed or not.  Certainly, I believe nothing of his miraculous achievements with which he is credited.  I had always believed he did exist, even until recently.  I guess, until now, I didn't question his existence (probably due to my catholic indoctrination).

I agree whether he was real or not, it was a positive addition to the OT.  What I don't fully understand about theists (for the most part) is calling the bible holy and then cherry picking what suits them today.  How can you accept the bible as a whole and avoid touchy verses?  Is the NT used much like the Urim and Thummim (Joseph Smith's 'tools' to decipher his 'golden plates') to use as a filter for the bad stuff in the bible?  If it is the word of god, why edit?  If it isn't, why not edit and come up with a new edition with all happy stuff?  Sorry for the tangent.  I'm just confused.

Actually, Dennis there is a lot of evidence that he existed from ancient texts (excluding Biblical sources obviously), so that in itself isn't a difficult conclusion to reach. The more important question is "Who was he?"

As for cherry picking, all of the things evangelicals follow and don't follow have a pretty good foundation, based on verses about the Sabbath, slavery, sacrifice, sustenance and compassion ( I couldn't think up an "S" word for compassion, sadly).

Other.  I don't know if there was a guy named Jesus who inspired people to write the Biblical stories or not.  During that time period there were a lot of self proclaimed messiahs walking around.  I simply haven't come across any historical evidence which points to there being a man behind the Jesus story...everything written about him does not date back to when he was claimed to exist.  There are, however, a lot of simularities between the Jesus story and stories in pagan religions.

Other. I don't know who or what the Christian Jesus was, but I'm pretty sure of what he was NOT.

Well, there is a lot of evidence that someone important named Jesus existed, who he was is a different issue:

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120): "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of their name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated but throughout the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)

Lucian of Samosata (Greek satirist): "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113

Flavius Julius (AD 37?-101?): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure - Questionable authenticity on this statement]. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Flavius Julius (AD 37?-101?): ""Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done." Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteDepends which one came first I suppose ... virgin birth tales pre-dated the bible therefore the claim that the virgin birth is unique and/or whatever is garbage.

No, it does not depend on which came first. You have to not only take into account geographical barriers to any possible correlation but you also have to understand the progression of mythological ideas from true events and the divergence of oral recounts and written texts.

Er ... yes it does!!!!! We are talking about religions in the same area that pre-existed Christianity so a very strong case can be made supporting the idea that the bible borrowed various legends from other gnostic religions of the time.

OK, let's deal with your supposed evidence that your Christ existed.

First of all a piece by Frank R. Zindler ... I seem to recall Zindler was a science fiction writer at one point but not sure on that, doesn't matter anyway :)

Additionally, depending on who is debating, Christians try to cite eyewitness, documentary, corroborative, scientific, identity/psychological/profile, fingerprint, medical, resurrection & circumstantial evidence in support of the claimed existence of their saviour.

Eyewitness Evidence
The fact is that there were no direct eye-witnesses ... all accounts of Jesus Christ's life were from AFTER the time he was alive (I'd be pleased to hear if you know any different) and there is no way of validating exactly when they were written, who they were written by or if they have been subsequently tampered with.

Documentary Evidence
The only documentary evidence that is reliable in cases such as this is that of known historians.

Some scholars believe that the writings of Tacitus WRT Christianity may be a Christian interpolation into the text but this is not at all certain and, unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists. It appears more likely that Tacitus was just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus and, if so, his words merely confirm that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of biblical claims (specifically the claimed existence of Jesus). If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are, however, good reasons to doubt that Tacitus was working from Roman records as he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator and he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos" and Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians.

John E. Remsberg, in his book "The Christ", CH2, "Silence of Contemporary Writers") goes on to say:

QuoteApparently the sentence "The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate" found in the works of Tacitus is one of the most significant "evidences" for the existence of Jesus Christ however Remsburg makes a number of points as to why the statement must be considered unsafe:

1.   It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2.   Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus and his arguments would have demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3.   Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus were not among them
4.   Origen, in his arguments with Celsus, would have used it had it existed.
5.   The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6.   It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7.   At this time but one copy of the Annals existed, and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eight centuryâ€"600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8.   As this single copy was in possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery would have been easy.
9.   Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10.   It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
11.   The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12.   In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13.   Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
14.   At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Remsburg further makes the point (and this is the one I am most interested in) that the passage in question is an interpolation, that the sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery because it interrupts the narrative and disconnects two closely related statements. Apparently if you eliminate the sentence there ceases to be a break in the narrative.

Of course, the most frequently cited text is that of Josephus (and I think the Flavius you mention is the same person) whose work is considered to be fairly good (actually superb in that his writings have been compared to the works of the Greek writer Herodotus). Those who believe in the existence of Jesus Christ like to quote him as being a first century direct witness but there's a problem (apart from the fact that he was born AFTER Jesus Christ is supposed to have died) ... men like Herodotus and Josephus wrote extremely well in terms of style & content (a huge part of the reason why they are considered so credible) but the writings of Josephus that refer to Jesus Christ are considered by many historians to be false (a later interpolation). They simply do not fit with the known style & normal kind of content of the writer and they are introduced in places in his work where they simply should not be. According to one historian Josephus' writings are like reading "War & Peace" by Tolstoy and then all of a sudden it starts talking about Jesus Christ like something out of a "Wish You Were Here" TV holiday guide!

Lucian was, in all likelihood, a quack ... he mentions the famous healing powers of a statue of Polydamas, an athlete, at Olympia, as well as the statue of Theagenes at Thasos (Council of the Gods 12). Is he really one of your most credible references?

Corroborating Evidence
There is none that can be definitively attributed to a genuine living Jesus Christ.

Scientific Evidence
What scientific evidence? Even if the bible were historically accurate (it isn't) it isn't the background history about which we are largely sceptical but the character-based claims i.e. what the people within supposedly did! There is no definitive historical Jesus ... his claimed existence has yet to be established beyond reasonable objective doubt. There is no scientific support for the essential claims made with the Christian bible.

Identity/Psychological/Profile Evidence
So Jesus Christ claimed he was the son of "God". I suspect many, many people have thought exactly the same and they have a place for people like that, it's called a psychiatric hospital! Do I need to say more?

Resurrection/Absent Bodies/Post Fatal Appearance Evidence
There simply is no validatable evidence to support these claims and since they haven't actually found the tomb yet (yes they've found a tomb but no one can say for certain it is THE tomb). Furthermore a recent find of an ancient bible doesn't mention any resurrection the implication of which is that that claimed event is a relatively recent addition to biblical scripture.

Circumstantial Evidence
Ultimately, as one might expect of an adherent of science, I'm a sceptic, I'm not a theist (which necessarily involves a degree of acceptance with evidence) and I don't make my mind up in the absence of evidence instead I assume things are NOT proven until specific verifiable evidence is provided so no, I won't jump to conclusions but neither will I assume that scrolls or any other scriptural material prove any of the essential biblical claims to be true until such time as you or someone else demonstrates that to be so :-)
 
"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" Thomas Jefferson

Kyu

ok heres my opinion
up until recently (that is about a year and a half ago) I believed that jesus existed, and even though he was just a normal man, he was a good teacher. But then I started searching online and I found many artices taht said that except from the holy books (which I believe were written after he died?) there are no other historical documents written during his life (or even after) that speak about jesus.
so I voted that he disn't exist

The reason that Jesus' life cannot be verified is god's will -faith.  If we are given proof of anything, it will surely be a faith buster.  Amen.

Well,

At least on this ocassion, I have to side with Kyu -- Sikh scholars have also poured over so-called evidence, and much comes down to whether  the Flavius Josephus' account of 'Christ' is verifiable.. as is most of his work, what his influences were to mention 'Christ/Christus',  or whether he actually penned anything about Christ at all. The evidence just doesn't exist, and I believe from what I've read, there's more circumstantial evidence to believe that using Flavius Josephus as a source for an Historical Jesus just can't be relied on. It's more likely than not that  one or more accounts of an historical Christ to Flavius Josephus were attributed to him after his death, and this done by early Christian scribes.

If you remove Flavius Josephus from the list of historical sources which supposedly corroborate the historicity of Jesus, then you really have nothing, unless you consider The New Testament as 'historical sources', which most objective biblical scholars do not.. but Christians do!

So as time goes forward, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence that the story of Christ is a contrived,a fabrication, and that his 'life' is a work of fiction, grows, and what we used to consider rock-solid evidence for his life, has truly disintegrated. I believe this will present a crisis for Christianity at large in the future, as public awareness of such theories and scholarly opinions becomes common.

For me personally, on the one hand my faith teaches me to respect Christians. On the other hand, what we'd call the Sikh Prime Directive: The Pursuit of Truth above all else, demands that I also look at the evidence. In any event, there are over 2 billion Christians on earth, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon -- this issues will affect us all, not just Christians.

QuoteEr ... yes it does!!!!! We are talking about religions in the same area that pre-existed Christianity so a very strong case can be made supporting the idea that the bible borrowed various legends from other gnostic religions of the time.

Mythology tends towards fantasy whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition appears to be a lone belief system that doesn't have such a fantastical nature.

QuoteAccording to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author (note: I presume this to be Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

You realize of course that the early Christians were outnumbered 30,000 to one? To many outsiders his death, for the most part, would have seemed as just another Roman crucifixion and wouldn't have warranted attention UNTIL the followers began to spread their doctrine further and wider.

QuoteThe fact is that there were no direct eye-witnesses ... all accounts of Jesus Christ's life were from AFTER the time he was alive (I'd be pleased to hear if you know any different) and there is no way of validating exactly when they were written, who they were written by or if they have been subsequently tampered with.

Of course they were accounts after Christ's life. Christ died at a relatively early age. His crucifixion, and claimed resurrection, is what made the news spread so widely. At first it would have appeared as though this was nothing important. No one on the outside would have HAD a reason to write about it. Wait, how would you be able to prove that something wasn't tampered with? You can only prove the affirmative, not the negative. The challenge, therefore, is rather irrational.

Did the Trojan Wars occur? If they didn't just say so, if you believe they did then please provide the list of all the writers who referenced it and the exact dates the materials were written at.

QuoteWhat scientific evidence? Even if the bible were historically accurate (it isn't) it isn't the background history about which we are largely sceptical but the character-based claims i.e. what the people within supposedly did! There is no definitive historical Jesus ... his claimed existence has yet to be established beyond reasonable objective doubt. There is no scientific support for the essential claims made with the Christian bible.

Which claims need scientific support? If you are suggesting that the miracles need to be supported by science then we need to talk.

QuoteSo Jesus Christ claimed he was the son of "God". I suspect many, many people have thought exactly the same and they have a place for people like that, it's called a psychiatric hospital! Do I need to say more?

Yes, but if someone came up to me and claimed he was wealthy I would want to see the evidence. Not just reply "Lots of people claim to be wealthy, you must be a liar too."

QuoteThere simply is no validatable evidence to support these claims and since they haven't actually found the tomb yet (yes they've found a tomb but no one can say for certain it is THE tomb). Furthermore a recent find of an ancient bible doesn't mention any resurrection the implication of which is that that claimed event is a relatively recent addition to biblical scripture.

According to the dates that the gospels were written in, people could have simply asked which grave it was and gone there to find out. The gospels are dated very early after Christ's death and as such the letters would have presented a challenge that anyone could have refuted. No such refutation exists.

Question: How did Christianity start? Some people got together and said: "You know, we can pretend that we met a guy...we'll call him Jesus"

QuoteThere are, however, good reasons to doubt that Tacitus was working from Roman records as he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator and he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos" and Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians.

If the massive amounts of followers were referring to him as Christos then it is more likely that the author would give a reference that is currently understood. By calling him by a name people aren't aware of you essentially make your texts useless. Tacitus writings that Pilate was a procurator is probably due to the fact that the title was changed after 44 A.D. and therefore Tacitus may not have been aware of the switch.

Quote"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" Thomas Jefferson

Also, please realize that when looking at a religious doctrine you can't simply rule it out from an atheistic perspective. Of course miracles aren't possible in science, that is why we call them miracles and not "natural sort of stuff."


Finally, if Paul's journey to Rome wasn't until around 60 A.D. as is commonly theorized then these writers would be ruled out as having lived at the wrong era.
Seneca the Elder (died 39 A.D.)
Pliny the Elder (um you realize that he wasn't a historian right...his writings are on medicine, plants and plant products (e.g., wine), agriculture, architecture, sculpture, geology and mineralogy.)
Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (A.D. 86 - after 146) How is this one legitimate from your vantage point? If he has mentioned Jesus you would have said it was tampered with and/or too far after the event.
Petronius (A.D. 27â€"66) Again, 6 years to write about an event of one man making a small influence in Rome? Not likely.
Dion Pruseus I can't find anything on this man and therefore can't verify anything about him.
Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BC - c. AD 31) Again, before the date

Okay, hopefully you are seeing a pattern here. How about you give me the names here that would have actually written about him because they were in some way or another historians or sociologists around the area at the time.

QuoteThe evidence just doesn't exist, and I believe from what I've read, there's more circumstantial evidence to believe that using Flavius Josephus as a source for an Historical Jesus just can't be relied on. It's more likely than not that one or more accounts of an historical Christ to Flavius Josephus were attributed to him after his death, and this done by early Christian scribes.

Okay, hypothetical guys, if they had added Christ into Josephus' work, why on earth didn't they add him to all the writings of everyone else? That is where your logic comes to a crashing halt.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Other.  I don't know if there was a guy named Jesus who inspired people to write the Biblical stories or not.  During that time period there were a lot of self proclaimed messiahs walking around.  I simply haven't come across any historical evidence which points to there being a man behind the Jesus story...everything written about him does not date back to when he was claimed to exist.  There are, however, a lot of simularities between the Jesus story and stories in pagan religions.

There is certainly no historical 'evidence' that would hold up in court today, nor to objective scrutiny .. .none of which matters to those to whom belief in Jesus is a matter of Faith, no disrespect , Sam Harris ;-) Doesn't really matter to me either, as to me it's the philosophy of Christianity, not the historicity, that matters.

When looking at any religion, of any era, I think it's important to have at least done some homework as to the history, culture, influences of the times that the religion was germinating, and subsequent stages.. I don't think Christianity can be understood without having a firm grasp of the mythological concepts of Savior Gods and Greek Mystery Cults.. remember, New Testament was written by educated Greeks, in Greek.. we have not a shred of evidence of an Historical Jesus. There seem to be far too many similarities in the mythic legends and descriptions of ancient Savior Gods and Jesus Christ, for this simply to be coincidence (i.e., virgin births, walking on water, miracles, powerful king or other figure attempts to kill him as a child, died a sacrificial death, etc.). Just google it..

And yes, around 2000 years ago, if Jesus Christ was an historical figure, he would probably have been considered by both locals and authorities as just another crazy leader of an apocalyptic cult.

No disrespect intended.. where truth lies, we must follow.

As

QuoteMythology tends towards fantasy whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition appears to be a lone belief system that doesn't have such a fantastical nature.

This is quite the misconception friend. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the works of the great American Professor of Mythology and author, Joseph Campbell.

His basic theory is that from Shamanism to the most organized of today's 'religions', it all comes from the human psyche and our dreams. He was  a big fan of Carl Jung, who proposed that humans are born with pre-programmed memories (genetic memory?),  which he called 'Jungian Archetypes'  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes)   , pls. Google the concept, it's truly fascinating.. having been a student of Psychology and a big fan of mythology for years, this is extremely interesting.

Well, from our 'dreams', we formulate our Myths. From our Myths, we formulate the substance of our religions. When we talk about myths and savior Gods, this is perfectly in accord with what Campbell and Jung were saying.

As Joseph Campbell said:

Quote"Myths are public dreams. Dreams are private myths."

A lifetime of the intense study of mythology and religion by Joseph Campbell can be distilled into that thought.  I highly recommend this book:

 The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth and as Religion

to understand what Campbell was saying about how religion is spawned of myth, and myth of dreams.



Mythology is in almost every case a manifestation of truths and reality, and has everything to do with both.. I'm talking about classic mythologies.. not something some paperback scifi/fantasy writer whips up for publication.


The purpose of recording and retelling myths and mythology is often to more clearly and vividly communicate universal truths , for educational and inspirational purposed, than we can see in our real lives.  Mythology is one of the greatest tools for the interpretation of dreams, of the collective psyche (Jung called it 'collective unconscious) of a people, and for the expression of truths..

J.R.R. Tolkien himself, the most famous 'mythologist' of the 20th century, flatly said that all of his Middle Earth writings were direct revelation by God... yup, and Tolkien would expound of how he believed most 'myths' were inspired by God to communicate important truths. For the best book on this subject, I HIGHLY recommend:  

J. R. R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle-Earth (Paperback)
by Bradley J. Birzer

You will see Tolkien in a new light, guaranteed.



No friend, I must disagree with you in that you don't seem to understand the purpose of mythology at all, and your love for you faith aside, I can't seriously accept your assertion that Christianity alone appears have no mythological base -- when if you just look at how Jesus is described, it's nearly verbatim from myths of Savior Gods and Greek Mystery Cult legends.

I encourage you to take a look at any of the courses on The New Testament by Professor Bart Ehrman
http://bartdehrman.com/ (http://bartdehrman.com/)
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescL ... c=Religion (http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=656&pc=Religion)

And learn how to truly understand the genesis and role of myth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell)

In particular, his PBS series with Bill Moyer: The Power of Myth

and 'Mythos'

are available on DVD and are tremendously entertaining and educational.

I encourage everyone to study Comparative Religion in order to get a better understanding of their own religion.. and to look extremely critically at your own faith.  My favorite quote of all time about religion is by.. .none other that Buddha himself:

QuoteDo not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha

If there is merit in your faith, and of course there is, then a critical examination and your own intellectual honestly will likely lead you to reconceptualize your own faith.. in a new light. I don't see how, no matter what scrutiny and evidence bears out, you will lose faith. You might simply become more of a critical thinker and cease to parrot dogma. Question everything.

Sat Nam

Quote from: "Titan"Mythology tends towards fantasy whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition appears to be a lone belief system that doesn't have such a fantastical nature.

Not only was that NOT true of many of the Gnostic religions of the time but that just smacks of "my religion is better than yours (whether dead or alive)" which really isn't something you can justify especially amongst a bunch of rationalists.

Quote from: "Titan"You realize of course that the early Christians were outnumbered 30,000 to one? To many outsiders his death, for the most part, would have seemed as just another Roman crucifixion and wouldn't have warranted attention UNTIL the followers began to spread their doctrine further and wider.

So what? Surely that plays into my argument that there is very little evidence to support the existence of your Jesus?

Quote from: "Titan"Of course they were accounts after Christ's life. Christ died at a relatively early age. His crucifixion, and claimed resurrection, is what made the news spread so widely. At first it would have appeared as though this was nothing important. No one on the outside would have HAD a reason to write about it. Wait, how would you be able to prove that something wasn't tampered with? You can only prove the affirmative, not the negative. The challenge, therefore, is rather irrational.

Again so what (see above)?

Quote from: "Titan"Did the Trojan Wars occur? If they didn't just say so, if you believe they did then please provide the list of all the writers who referenced it and the exact dates the materials were written at.

I'm not arguing for or against the Trojan Wars, I am arguing against the existence of a literal Jesus. And for the record I am not arguing for or against the existence of any other historical figure ... I accept all of those tacitly in part because I don't give a damn whether they did or did not exist whether such events did or did not happen! As it happens I care a great deal about whether there was or was a Jesus Christ and whether the essential claims of Christianity (in particular) are true or not.

Quote from: "Titan"Which claims need scientific support? If you are suggesting that the miracles need to be supported by science then we need to talk.

That's indeed what I am arguing; anything, anything at all, leaves a trail of evidence, I don't care if it was done by humans or by a god, there will be evidence ... if there is evidence it can be examined.

Quote from: "Titan"Ys, but if someone came up to me and claimed he was wealthy I would want to see the evidence. Not just reply "Lots of people claim to be wealthy, you must be a liar too."

If someone told me they were wealthy, I'd say good for you ... I genuinely wouldn't care over much. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

Quote from: "Titan"According to the dates that the gospels were written in, people could have simply asked which grave it was and gone there to find out. The gospels are dated very early after Christ's death and as such the letters would have presented a challenge that anyone could have refuted. No such refutation exists.

What can I say? Can you prove the tomb found is actually the tomb of Jesus Christ? It's going to be difficult because you have yet to prove the existence of said Christ

As for the bible, yes I know they are CLAIMED to be shortly after Jesus Christ's death but they don't actually date back that far do they? The oldest bible currently in existence is the Codex Sinaiticus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7651105.stm).

Quote from: "Titan"Question: How did Christianity start? Some people got together and said: "You know, we can pretend that we met a guy...we'll call him Jesus"

That's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

Quote from: "Titan"If the massive amounts of followers were referring to him as Christos then it is more likely that the author would give a reference that is currently understood. By calling him by a name people aren't aware of you essentially make your texts useless. Tacitus writings that Pilate was a procurator is probably due to the fact that the title was changed after 44 A.D. and therefore Tacitus may not have been aware of the switch.

In other words he was a shoddy and careless writer (unlike Josephus and Herodotus)? Not very convincing evidence is it?

Quote from: "Titan"Also, please realize that when looking at a religious doctrine you can't simply rule it out from an atheistic perspective. Of course miracles aren't possible in science, that is why we call them miracles and not "natural sort of stuff."

No but I can ridicule it from a mythical comparison perspective which is exactly what it deserves and again I refer you to the fact that any event leaves a trail of evidence.

Quote from: "Titan"Finally, if Paul's journey to Rome wasn't until around 60 A.D. as is commonly theorized then these writers would be ruled out as having lived at the wrong era.

Who's claiming Paul was the only route for information to Rome, I'm certainly not.
 

Quote from: "Titan"Seneca the Elder (died 39 A.D.)

Well within scope time-wise.

Quote from: "Titan"Pliny the Elder (um you realize that he wasn't a historian right...his writings are on medicine, plants and plant products (e.g., wine), agriculture, architecture, sculpture, geology and mineralogy.)

Maybe but Pliny reports numerous such tales believed by many people, even without magic ...one might reasonably suspect he'd report tales of the miraculous Jesus Christ.

Quote from: "Titan"Lucius Flavius Arrianus 'Xenophon' (A.D. 86 - after 146) How is this one legitimate from your vantage point? If he has mentioned Jesus you would have said it was tampered with and/or too far after the event.

I wasn't aware I’d mentioned him.

Quote from: "Titan"Petronius (A.D. 27â€"66) Again, 6 years to write about an event of one man making a small influence in Rome? Not likely.

Petronius is notable only because one of his works ridicules the idea of resurrection well before any of the known gospels were written (and is believed to have derived from a subject & style of satire much, much older).

Quote from: "Titan"Marcus Velleius Paterculus (c. 19 BC - c. AD 31) Again, before the date

For the crucifixion perhaps but not the phenomenon of Jesus Christ itself.

Quote from: "Titan"Okay, hopefully you are seeing a pattern here. How about you give me the names here that would have actually written about him because they were in some way or another historians or sociologists around the area at the time.

Sorry? You want me to do your job for you? Thank you but no ... I gave you a piece by Remsberg (referenced by Zindler) which listed 40 plus names and of which you criticised maybe 6 that leaves you 30 plus to deal with.

Quote from: "Titan"Okay, hypothetical guys, if they had added Christ into Josephus' work, why on earth didn't they add him to all the writings of everyone else? That is where your logic comes to a crashing halt.

Yet the "Wish You Were Here" evidence remains ... Josephus simply didn't writer in that way. Also I'm not claiming a massive conspiracy, it's not like you guys need much evidence to base your silly beliefs on is it?

Kyu

QuoteYet the "Wish You Were Here" evidence remains ... Josephus simply didn't writer in that way. Also I'm not claiming a massive conspiracy, it's not like you guys need much evidence to base your silly beliefs on is it?

Kyu

Silly beliefs? Seems, Kyu, you won't even entertain the possibility or extend the courtesy of meeting people even part way, never mind half-way. So now, friend, exactly what 'beliefs' are you talking about when you accuse Christians of 'silly beliefs'.. the entire dogma, an indictment of the entire faith?? Or selected aspects of Christianity which to outsiders do seem to stretch the limits of credulity... but to the 'believer', are plausible?

So, why don't you defend your assertion.. just get to the point, and pls. don't evade the question.

Kyu, yes, I'm being an annoying jerk, but are you getting that Deja vu feeling? Can you at least try to understand, show some empathy.. you know, EMPATHY and some semblance of respect? What's silly to you can be quite meaningful to others.. you don't get to define 'silly' for believers in a faith.. maybe 'irrational' as you define rationality,  but pls. don't insult.

QuoteNot only was that NOT true of many of the Gnostic religions of the time but that just smacks of "my religion is better than yours (whether dead or alive)" which really isn't something you can justify especially amongst a bunch of rationalists.

How about we drop this, I don't believe we are going to get to this debate anytime soon and we ultimately just end up saying "No" "Yes" "No" "Yes" back and forth forever.

QuoteSo what? Surely that plays into my argument that there is very little evidence to support the existence of your Jesus?

Why? Because it didn't spread around the globe in an instant?

QuoteI'm not arguing for or against the Trojan Wars, I am arguing against the existence of a literal Jesus. And for the record I am not arguing for or against the existence of any other historical figure ... I accept all of those tacitly in part because I don't give a damn whether they did or did not exist whether such events did or did not happen! As it happens I care a great deal about whether there was or was a Jesus Christ and whether the essential claims of Christianity (in particular) are true or not.

But with the claims you are making concerning the validity of events in history you had better be ready to apply said methods to all historical accounts and see what remains. We haven't gotten to whether the essential claims of Christianity are true or not, merely that someone existed around that time and made such an indelible impact on the lives of the commoners that the world was forever changed.

QuoteThat's indeed what I am arguing; anything, anything at all, leaves a trail of evidence, I don't care if it was done by humans or by a god, there will be evidence ... if there is evidence it can be examined.

I know this is unlikely, but would you ever be interested in visiting Indonesia for a few weeks. I know this sounds weird but if you just pay for the airfare my family will provide food and transportation and everything. The reason I say this is because there are some events that I really would like your explanation on that occur in Indonesia quite frequently, things that have eye witness testimony from multiple accounts. If these things are all easily explained by science I would love to know. But this is an honest proposal, if you are interested.

QuoteIf someone told me they were wealthy, I'd say good for you ... I genuinely wouldn't care over much. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

I was arguing against the form of logic being used, not the idea of people telling you that they were wealthy.

QuoteWhat can I say? Can you prove the tomb found is actually the tomb of Jesus Christ? It's going to be difficult because you have yet to prove the existence of said Christ

No, I'm talking about when Christianity first started. People simply could have said: "Where was he buried and who was guarding the tomb" and the fraud could have been discovered that simply.

QuoteAs for the bible, yes I know they are CLAIMED to be shortly after Jesus Christ's death but they don't actually date back that far do they? The oldest bible currently in existence is the Codex Sinaiticus.

Dr. William F. Albright argued "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80, two full gneerations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New testament critics today."
Eight years later he stated in an interview that the completion date for all the books in the New Testament was "probably sometime between circa A.D. 50 and 75."
Dr. John A. T. Robinson of Trinity College in Cambridge, concluded that the possible first draft of Matthew was written as early as circa A.D. 4.
It is evident that the Book of Acts was written in approximately A.D. 62 because it doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 an event which would have been impossible to omit since Jerusalem is central to much of Acts. Not only that, but one of the prophecies of Christ came true during the fall of Jerusalem. Nothing is mentioned of Nero's persecution of A.D. 62. The book ends with Paul in Rome under the confinement of Nero. Neither does Acts mention the death of three central figures: James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64) and Peter (A.D. 65). It included the deaths of Stephen and James, why didn't it include their deaths too?
If the book of Acts was written by Luke in A.D. 62, then the Gospel of Luke must be dated earlier, probably in the late 50s due to the fact that it would have taken some time to write Acts.
Critics argue that Matthew and Mark wrote their gospels prior to Luke, if that is true than it would have made their compositions dated no later than the late 50s.
Furthermore, since much of these accounts were collections of circulations of partially written works, the reports probably circulated in the 40s or 50s, it can be dated back even further.

The concepts argued by William F. Alrbight are pulled from a collection of his works.

QuoteThat's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

QuoteIn other words he was a shoddy and careless writer (unlike Josephus and Herodotus)? Not very convincing evidence is it?

It is hardly uncommon for historians to utilize modern words to describe titles of the past so that they make more sense or to lump different titles under one title.

QuoteNo but I can ridicule it from a mythical comparison perspective which is exactly what it deserves and again I refer you to the fact that any event leaves a trail of evidence.

I burped...can you track it? Can you prove it happened? What exactly does a "trail of evidence" entail? I have a few miracles I would like to site but I don't know what you are qualifying as evidence in this case.

QuoteWho's claiming Paul was the only route for information to Rome, I'm certainly not.

Do you think the Romans were kept up to date on every sect creation in their entire empire? Honestly?

QuoteWell within scope time-wise.

Not for it to have been a major issue in the area yet.

QuoteMaybe but Pliny reports numerous such tales believed by many people, even without magic ...one might reasonably suspect he'd report tales of the miraculous Jesus Christ.

Such as?

QuoteI wasn't aware I’d mentioned him.

See Arrianus.

QuotePetronius is notable only because one of his works ridicules the idea of resurrection well before any of the known gospels were written (and is believed to have derived from a subject & style of satire much, much older).

So hypothetically, if there weren't any satires of an event by a particular author we can hold that it didn't happen?

QuoteFor the crucifixion perhaps but not the phenomenon of Jesus Christ itself.

From Rome? Absolutely.

QuoteSorry? You want me to do your job for you? Thank you but no ... I gave you a piece by Remsberg (referenced by Zindler) which listed 40 plus names and of which you criticised maybe 6 that leaves you 30 plus to deal with.

Do you realize what you are suggesting here? I have shown you how many of these people wouldn't have had the chance to hear about Jesus or Christianity or wouldn't have had a reason to write about it. Since Remsberg didn't even do such inquiry I don't hold his works in high regard. But I hold you in high enough regard that if there was one who you believe absolutely should have mentioned Christ I'll definitely look into it.

QuoteYet the "Wish You Were Here" evidence remains ... Josephus simply didn't writer in that way. Also I'm not claiming a massive conspiracy, it's not like you guys need much evidence to base your silly beliefs on is it?

Which part of his texts do not conform to his works as a whole? Besides the line I mentioned?

Karakara

QuoteWell, from our 'dreams', we formulate our Myths. From our Myths, we formulate the substance of our religions. When we talk about myths and savior Gods, this is perfectly in accord with what Campbell and Jung were saying.

This...based on the theory that we have these 'dreams?' What evidence do they have so that we can hold this theory in high regards when looking back on the evolution of religions?

Quote"Myths are public dreams. Dreams are private myths."

myth
â€, â€,/mɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mith] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1.    a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

So how do dreams fit this description?

I'm sorry Karakara you threw a LOT of external sources at me. Please give me one or two to investigate first.

Quote from: "Titan"How about we drop this, I don't believe we are going to get to this debate anytime soon and we ultimately just end up saying "No" "Yes" "No" "Yes" back and forth forever.

As you wish

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSo what? Surely that plays into my argument that there is very little evidence to support the existence of your Jesus?

Why? Because it didn't spread around the globe in an instant?

No because if there were relatively few followers the evidence would be far more scarce so it plays into my argument that there is no real evidence for the bloke.

Quote from: "Titan"But with the claims you are making concerning the validity of events in history you had better be ready to apply said methods to all historical accounts and see what remains. We haven't gotten to whether the essential claims of Christianity are true or not, merely that someone existed around that time and made such an indelible impact on the lives of the commoners that the world was forever changed.

No, what I am arguing is about the validity of a piece of fiction not history.

Quote from: "Titan"I know this is unlikely, but would you ever be interested in visiting Indonesia for a few weeks. I know this sounds weird but if you just pay for the airfare my family will provide food and transportation and everything. The reason I say this is because there are some events that I really would like your explanation on that occur in Indonesia quite frequently, things that have eye witness testimony from multiple accounts. If these things are all easily explained by science I would love to know. But this is an honest proposal, if you are interested.

I would at some point (and if so I genuinely would like to meet you ... not everything has to be about religion) but right now I'm afraid I can't afford it. My next planned trip abroad is to Auschwitz anyway, hopefully next year.

Quote from: "Titan"I was arguing against the form of logic being used, not the idea of people telling you that they were wealthy.

Then give a better example.

Quote from: "Titan"No, I'm talking about when Christianity first started. People simply could have said: "Where was he buried and who was guarding the tomb" and the fraud could have been discovered that simply.

I'm not sure what your point is ... are you saying it is a fraud or is not and are you only referring to a tomb back then or now?

Quote from: "Titan"Dr. William F. Albright argued "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New testament critics today."

Albright was a biblical archaeologist I believe ... his views are fairly outmoded so I'm not sure why I should take the statement of someone so evidently biased towards a particular POV as valid. That said it seems to be a fairly common view that most of the books of the bible were broadly speaking in existence by the 1st Century CE.

It will be very interesting to see what this Codex bible reveals don't you think?

Quote from: "Titan"Not only that, but one of the prophecies of Christ came true during the fall of Jerusalem.

A prophecy probably included after the event ... now you may think, "well he would say that" and of course you'd be correct, I would BUT one huge problem with your bible is that there appear to be so many cuts and additions since the books were originally written (Lord knows what they would have done if they'd been able to cut & paste on computers) that it is hard to tell what si genuine and what is not.

Like I say ... the Codex is going to be interesting particularly since it bears directly on key claims made by Christians.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThat's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

I would assume the books had been in place longer than that in some form even if it was only Gnostic but ultimately, this idea that Christians were the persecuted ones doesn't really hold water does it? Under Roman rule just about everybody but Romans were persecuted.

Quote from: "Titan"It is hardly uncommon for historians to utilize modern words to describe titles of the past so that they make more sense or to lump different titles under one title.

The relevant point being?

Quote from: "Titan"I burped...can you track it? Can you prove it happened? What exactly does a "trail of evidence" entail? I have a few miracles I would like to site but I don't know what you are qualifying as evidence in this case.

Would I care to want to prove or disprove it? I think not. If there is no evidence for a so -called miracle then it can be dismissed.

Quote from: "Titan"Do you think the Romans were kept up to date on every sect creation in their entire empire? Honestly?

I think Roman communications were quite excellent, their record keeping meticulous so yes I would say they were aware of most things in their empire and even if a sect existed almost unknown because of low numbers again it just plays into my basic argument.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteWell within scope time-wise.

Not for it to have been a major issue in the area yet.

And the point you're making is?

QuoteMaybe but Pliny reports numerous such tales believed by many people, even without magic ...one might reasonably suspect he'd report tales of the miraculous

Quote from: "Titan"Jesus Christ.

Such as?

From Infidels.org, "He says Varro reported on two different occasions seeing "a person carried out on a bier to burial who returned home on foot," besides witnessing the apparent resurrection of his uncle-in-law Corfidius."

Quote from: "Titan"So hypothetically, if there weren't any satires of an event by a particular author we can hold that it didn't happen?

That's not what I said is it? What I said was essentially saying was that resurrection was a common them for satire at the time so its appearance in biblical stories might not be so unusual.

Quote from: "Titan"For the crucifixion perhaps but not the phenomenon of Jesus Christ itself.

From Rome? Absolutely.[/quote]

See above.

Quote from: "Titan"Do you realize what you are suggesting here? I have shown you how many of these people wouldn't have had the chance to hear about Jesus or Christianity or wouldn't have had a reason to write about it. Since Remsberg didn't even do such inquiry I don't hold his works in high regard. But I hold you in high enough regard that if there was one who you believe absolutely should have mentioned Christ I'll definitely look into it.

Fine but I'm still not doing your research for you.

Quote from: "Titan"Which part of his texts do not conform to his works as a whole? Besides the line I mentioned?

Specifically the part is in occurs in Book 18 of "Antiquities Of The Jews" and is problematic (possibly inserted) because Origen claimed Josephus did not recognise Jesus as any kind of saviour and because the passage concerned is highly pro-Christian and not in keeping with the usual style of Josephus's work (this is the "Wish You Were Here" bit I was referring to). Many historians reject this passage entirely but others maintain the passage was altered not inserted and whilst not pro-Christian did refer to Jesus Christ ... if so that would, I suppose, constitute possible evidence for the existence of a literal Jesus.

Kyu

Quote from: "karakara"Kyu, yes, I'm being an annoying jerk, but are you getting that Deja vu feeling? Can you at least try to understand, show some empathy.. you know, EMPATHY and some semblance of respect? What's silly to you can be quite meaningful to others.. you don't get to define 'silly' for believers in a faith.. maybe 'irrational' as you define rationality,  but pls. don't insult.

I will not debate ANYTHING with you until such point as you resolve the other issue between us. I won't repeat this and will only deal with you in that thread until it's resolved.

Kyu

I believe he existed. There are a few other records of his existence other than the Bible. I think he was a good man and a liar out to change the world for the better. Didn't work out that great though.  

I think the name was common enough that somebody with the name existed.

As for the "causation/correlation" issues, Mr. Titan (I'm assuming male, apologies if you're female), I think you are making too much of it.  In my mind, the Jesus depicted in the Bible doesn't have to be 100% original or 100% influenced by earlier myths/beliefs/stories.  If there is a 51/49% chance that the stories are influenced if not solely based off of already existing/known stories, then that is enough to cast doubt on the whole idea that the Jesus of the Bible (exactly as described) existed.

I think I remember my wifey talking about the similarities between Gilgamesh and Jesus, Gilgamesh being one of the oldest literary works found.

As far as geographical boundaries that might/should have kept cultures from cross pollinating, being that the Jesus stories happened in the middle east, and was started by a group of people who spent a long time living in Egypt ( a huge nation that I'm pretty sure had quite a large reach due to trade) I'm sure that geographical barriers were a lot less effective at reducing cultural cross pollination.  

On a side note, from reading other posts by Mr. Titan, I'd like to extend an internet handshake.  You know your stuff and know how to talk to us (or at least have accepted how we non-believers communicate).

Just a few comments that burst into my head upon reading Titan's post:  

Quote from: "Titan"Mythology tends towards fantasy whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition appears to be a lone belief system that doesn't have such a fantastical nature.

Judeo-Christian "tradition" doesn't have a fantastical nature?  People turning into pillars of salt?  A man who could walk on water?  A man who died and rose from the dead (we call those "zombies" in this house)?  Snakes that talk?  All of these are the stuff of fantasy literature.

Quote from: "Titan"Did the Trojan Wars occur? If they didn't just say so, if you believe they did then please provide the list of all the writers who referenced it and the exact dates the materials were written at.

Perhaps, perhaps not... but the Trojan War isn't based on fantasy (as referenced above) or mythological happenings AND those who believe in the Trojan War aren't trying to use the Trojan War and the writing about said war to make laws and discriminate against people in contemporary America.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Here's a quote for you
 
"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" Thomas Jefferson

Kyu

Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

I think that this article http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/ ... ation.html (http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html) pretty much sums up, where I think that the Jesus myth came from.

Quote from: "Sophus"Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

it's a possibility something with a probability along the lines the FSM mating with the IPU to create a teapot orbiting somehow in the vicinity of Betelgeuse (probably much, much lower) but, let's be honest, we're in fairy gah gah land now aren't we?

Kyu

Quote from: "Sophus"Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

Why did your all powerful personal god who breaks laws of nature at will ever come up with these laws in the first place?  Shouldn't this god you speak of be able to change the laws?  

If I were god and my creations were worshiping the false god of science, I would change all the rules because I could.  That will show those ungrateful little bastards not to question me (by me I mean the few people I've entrusted to dictate my words).  I would then proceed to come down to Earth as a giant striped flying elephant with eight horns (also, because I can) visible to all people at the same time and tell them to write a new book, better yet, create a DVD so that all could see my might for years to come.  The DVD would show my new commandments written in a new language that cannot be misconstrued or mistranslated in any way and would be understood by all.  Scratch that.  Better yet, I would imprint in everyone's DNA (right next to the morals I gave everyone) the unbreakable belief in me rather than let people have a choice (that didn't work as I initially planned).

I would only be able to do this every millennium or so since I would be so busy monitoring every atom in the universe.  It's a lot harder than it sounds and so flipping boring.  Oh crap, why the hell was I controlling the entire universe (and beyond?) anyway?  I think I would start from scratch.  Something less clusterfuckish.

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "karakara"Kyu, yes, I'm being an annoying jerk, but are you getting that Deja vu feeling? Can you at least try to understand, show some empathy.. you know, EMPATHY and some semblance of respect? What's silly to you can be quite meaningful to others.. you don't get to define 'silly' for believers in a faith.. maybe 'irrational' as you define rationality,  but pls. don't insult.

I will not debate ANYTHING with you until such point as you resolve the other issue between us. I won't repeat this and will only deal with you in that thread until it's resolved.

Kyu

LOL , Don't do me any favors!

I just want to point out the origination of the "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" argument: C.S. Lewis.

If I've said it once, I'll say it again. C.S. Lewis would have been the Best Damn Defense Attorney in history had he chosen that profession.

However, it's impossible for Jesus to be a liar, a lunatic, or a Lord because he's only a Gospel character based loosly on some forgotten historical figure. The gospel authors were probably a mixture of liars and lunatics.

What's more likely - that a Godman was raised from the dead or that a myth-maker lied about it?

Since Jesus (a literary Character) is silent on the matter - I choose that a myth-maker lied, or was doing his job: making a myth.

Honestly myth-makers aren't necessarily liars. They heard a tale that inspired them and they wrote it down. Then murderous fanatics like Paul found copies and took the Gospel all over the known world.

Quote from: "DennisK"

Quote from: "Sophus"Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

Why did your all powerful personal god who breaks laws of nature at will ever come up with these laws in the first place?  Shouldn't this god you speak of be able to change the laws?  

Umm, I'm an atheist. I don't have a god. I was just trying to point out that what was said really wasn't a valid argument. Theist and atheist have a nasty habit of jumpong on anything that supports them when in fact if it isn't well thought out it only hurts your argument.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "DennisK"

Quote from: "Sophus"Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

Why did your all powerful personal god who breaks laws of nature at will ever come up with these laws in the first place?  Shouldn't this god you speak of be able to change the laws?  

Umm, I'm an atheist. I don't have a god. I was just trying to point out that what was said really wasn't a valid argument. Theist and atheist have a nasty habit of jumpong on anything that supports them when in fact if it isn't well thought out it only hurts your argument.

Sophus Ji,

I would encourage you to rethink this false leap of logic.. a 'false ergo'.  I take your word that you don't subscribe to any particular theology, but your assertion that you don't have a 'God' is just as unprovable as one who claims to have a God.  My faith teaches a different concept of God ... diffused, omnipresent, without shape or form, and definitely residing in every human soul. Take a close look in the mirror -- this might bring you closer to God than all the wild sermons and threats of 'fire and brimstone' that you .. probably rightly, dismiss.


Sat Nam

Quote from: "karakara"Sophus Ji,

I would encourage you to rethink this false leap of logic.. a 'false ergo'.  I take your word that you don't subscribe to any particular theology, but your assertion that you don't have a 'God' is just as unprovable as one who claims to have a God.  My faith teaches a different concept of God ... diffused, omnipresent, without shape or form, and definitely residing in every human soul. Take a close look in the mirror -- this might bring you closer to God than all the wild sermons and threats of 'fire and brimstone' that you .. probably rightly, dismiss.


Sat Nam

Let me first of all thank you. I had never examined Sikhism before and enjoyed learning about it.

I don't need to prove that I don't have a god to anyone other than myself. It seems to me you are suggesting I go by a feeling rather than a thought. A feeling which I believe can be explained psychologically.

My, my. We are veering from the topic of this thread. Is that bad? lol

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "karakara"Sophus Ji,

I would encourage you to rethink this false leap of logic.. a 'false ergo'.  I take your word that you don't subscribe to any particular theology, but your assertion that you don't have a 'God' is just as unprovable as one who claims to have a God.  My faith teaches a different concept of God ... diffused, omnipresent, without shape or form, and definitely residing in every human soul. Take a close look in the mirror -- this might bring you closer to God than all the wild sermons and threats of 'fire and brimstone' that you .. probably rightly, dismiss.


Sat Nam

Let me first of all thank you. I had never examined Sikhism before and enjoyed learning about it.

I don't need to prove that I don't have a god to anyone other than myself. It seems to me you are suggesting I go by a feeling rather than a thought. A feeling which I believe can be explained psychologically.

My, my. We are veering from the topic of this thread. Is that bad? lol

I don't think 'veering off topic is necessarily bad, sometimes a welcome diversion! Of course you don't need to prove anything.. there is no burden of proof on you, nor is there one on me, as we are both dealing in 'unprovables. Either the cognitive or intuitive path can be  equally legitimate depending upon the subject being considered. Either can lead you to or from God. You may certainly entertain your own beliefs, as you mention, but from your generalization they seem loosely formulated... simply 'psychologically'.. maybe. but unless one has studied the psychological aspects of spirituality to an advanced level, ask yourself, what do I really know? Beliefs and knowledge can be in harmony, or can have nothing to do with one another. As a former Atheist of many years, I would simply suggest that for all my own fervent 'belief' in NO GOD, it was a baseless belief, because after I had had my own intense 'epiphany', all of my early theories, doubts, rational arguments, when out the window, supplanted .. virtually instantly, but a new world view based upon tangible experience.

Sat Nam

As a very brief follow up to my previous post, I'll make the observation that for many atheists , agnostics, etc., trying to wrap their brains around spirituality and/or God.. you can make an analogy to a blind person who is trying to conceptualize what sighted people are telling him/her.. or a deaf person trying to imagine sound from what he/she sees.. or even better: a person who has never experience orgasm, trying to image the experience from description.. sometimes, one must have an experience in order to understand, and all of the attempts to process the concept of 'God' through some sort of logical algorithm, and make it a perfect equation that ties everything together and fits nicely with science, history, etc... fail. You can 'believe' in God, and that's fine.. but you'll never be sure about your faith... until you have the experience of 'knowing' God. This, typically, is experienced suddenly, via 'Epiphany', or methodically and systematically, through 'Mystical' spiritual practices, many methods of which are used in many faiths.

I don't expect to convince a non-believer of anything, not my purpose. The human tendency is to believe what we want to believe, what we're comfortable believing in. I'd say, don't build a psychological wall, barrier, or 'firewall' against God.. or any aspect of spirituality, merely to conform to your own self-appointed label of 'Atheist'.  When we slap a label on ourselves, we often don't realize the harm that we are doing. Just as most of you embrace science.. and rightly so, as do I... I implore you not to perform de facto 'spiritual lobotomies' on yourselves either.. an open mind is a healthy mind. Slapping a label on yourselves leads to stagnation, ignorance, and ultimately stunts your potential for human growth.

My beliefs, in any area, are anything but "loosely formulated." I always consider, think and investigate, especially in the search for a god as I was once a theist. So saying that I think the way I do because I have never experienced it doesn't work either. Having been on both sides I see that life is much more magnificent when you realize that it doesn't last forever.

Feelings can be deceptive. Logic is the only solid rock to form beliefs upon. An experience is composed of senses; feeling. Thus it can't be trusted. Have I experienced miracles? Sure. But was it something supernatural? No. It is only fate, the weight of circumstances. Good things happen. Spectacularly wonderful things occur actually more than expected sometimes in this world. And so do bad things and downright horrible events. Either way, these miracles and tragedies would occur with or without a god. We can be thankful for vicissitudes without needing to believe that a being a almighty force is behind it. Think of it this way: To be in the desert and see a mirage is an experience however false it may be.

What do I really know? There are a great number of reasons why I know there is no god or supernatural but to stay on this subject: I know that psychologically all religions are the same in terms of the reasons for their creation and their followers belief in it. If one were correct don't you think it would stand out?

Quote from: "karakara"The human tendency is to believe what we want to believe, what we're comfortable believing in. I'd say, don't build a psychological wall, barrier, or 'firewall' against God.. or any aspect of spirituality, merely to conform to your own self-appointed label of 'Atheist'.  When we slap a label on ourselves, we often don't realize the harm that we are doing. Just as most of you embrace science.. and rightly so, as do I... I implore you not to perform de facto 'spiritual lobotomies' on yourselves either.. an open mind is a healthy mind. Slapping a label on yourselves leads to stagnation, ignorance, and ultimately stunts your potential for human growth.

I completely agree. Now I'm pleased to find a theist who recognizes this concept but are you willing to practice what you preach?

I wished to remain a theist but my desire for truth was greater. And with some sorrow I left my old beliefs and adopted what I thought was really true. I still remain open minded. But again, all I am recieving from a believer, is that I should go by what I "feel." It is not in my nature to go by feelings. Before I commit my life to something I would desire at least some solid proof.

Sophus Ji,

I'm chuckling.. not at you -- I like what you've said.. but I have to sometimes just step back and chuckle at the wonder of the human mind.. of beliefs, reason, rationality, irrationality, logic, illogic...  I think our last few posts can serve as useful examples of people talking past each other.. as we are more or less trapped into doing by how we've defined ourselves, the sides and stands we've taken, etc. I'll comment, for what it's worth ;-)

QuoteMy beliefs, in any area, are anything but "loosely formulated." I always consider, think and investigate, especially in the search for a god as I was once a theist.

I'm glad to hear.. I had nothing to go on but your simple assertion previously.  Bear in mind that you can 'consider, think and investigate' for a lifetime, and be 100% sure that you've arrived at a correct conclusion, and still be 100% wrong. The fact that you were once a 'theist'  is interesting, and parallels my own experience, in reverse. How amusing!

QuoteSo saying that I think the way I do because I have never experienced it doesn't work either. Having been on both sides I see that life is much more magnificent when you realize that it doesn't last forever.

Well, the fact that you're a self-proclaimed 'former theist' is still meaningless, unless you define your 'theology' and your experiences, or lack thereof, of attaining union with God. The majority of people in all of the world's religions never attain what mystics call 'union' with God, or as Hindus say, 'God Actualization'... many names for this experience. An ecstatic union.. awareness of the Divine Presence, etc. I would agree with your statement about mortality.. it does give us a sense of purpose if we realize that we have an expiration date. Even for those who believe in 'Reincarnation'.. they still can't dispute that they will only live their current live once.. then it will be gone forever.

QuoteFeelings can be deceptive. Logic is the only solid rock to form beliefs upon. An experience is composed of senses; feeling. Thus it can't be trusted.

Absolutely. Feelings can be deceptive. What can't? At some point, you must embrace your humanity. You can only ignore your feelings and senses to a point.. after all, even for an evolutionist (as I am.. no conflict in my faith.. ) we did evolved our senses and feelings to help us to ascertain that which is real and true, correct? As a Sikh, my ultimate search is for Truth. In fact, one of our names for God is 'The True Name', and I believe my faith might be unique in that if science and Truth at some point in the future bear out that our founding Gurus were wrong, then we would be compelled to change our faith to be in accordance with Truth.. Logic,  'Mr. Spock', is a useful and often necessary tool..  but as we've seen time and again, Kirk's (Kirk.. coincidentally, Gaelic for 'Church') intuition always trumped Spock's logic, to make a useful analogy. Logic can only take you so far, then we must enlist our other gifts.. our feelings, our senses, and only when we take all of the above into consideration, is it often possible to arrive at Truth.

QuoteHave I experienced miracles? Sure. But was it something supernatural? No. It is only fate, the weight of circumstances. Good things happen. Spectacularly wonderful things occur actually more than expected sometimes in this world. And so do bad things and downright horrible events. Either way, these miracles and tragedies would occur with or without a god. We can be thankful for vicissitudes without needing to believe that a being a almighty force is behind it. Think of it this way: To be in the desert and see a mirage is an experience however false it may be.

I've posted on my own Sikhnet forum about miracles, and I agree with much of what you've said. I've lectured other Sikhs who have a tendency to believe in a supernatural explanation as the first answer, to embrace 'critical thinking', and to always be aware of the axiom: "Correlation does not prove causation". However, that being said, much depends on one's definition of 'miracle'.

QuoteWhat do I really know? There are a great number of reasons why I know there is no god or supernatural but to stay on this subject: I know that psychologically all religions are the same in terms of the reasons for their creation and their followers belief in it. If one were correct don't you think it would stand out?

Indeed, what do you really know? You are patently wrong on your assertion that cosmology, cosmogony, and genesis of 'religions' all stem from the same psychological basis.. pls. don't quote Carl Jung and his Jungian Archetypes, I can turn that argument on it's head. Sir, with all due respect, you might 'believe' your assertion to be true, but you do not 'know' it to be true.

Quote from: "karakara"The human tendency is to believe what we want to believe, what we're comfortable believing in. I'd say, don't build a psychological wall, barrier, or 'firewall' against God.. or any aspect of spirituality, merely to conform to your own self-appointed label of 'Atheist'.  When we slap a label on ourselves, we often don't realize the harm that we are doing. Just as most of you embrace science.. and rightly so, as do I... I implore you not to perform de facto 'spiritual lobotomies' on yourselves either.. an open mind is a healthy mind. Slapping a label on yourselves leads to stagnation, ignorance, and ultimately stunts your potential for human growth.

QuoteI completely agree. Now I'm pleased to find a theist who recognizes this concept but are you willing to practice what you preach?

Yes, to be in accord wit the teachings of my faith, I must not only 'talk the talk' but 'walk the walk' . In what respect do you suggest I'm not practicing that concepts that I implore others to embrace?

Quote"I wished to remain a theist but my desire for truth was greater."

Touche -- I was comfortable being an Atheist, but I discovered my true path, a path which emphasizes Truth above all else.. we call this concept: Sat .. .from Sanscrit:  http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sat (http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Sat) .. I think this is where I started chuckling when first reading your post, as we both seek 'Truth', but both realize 'Truth' differently.. how human.


 

QuoteAnd with some sorrow I left my old beliefs and adopted what I thought was really true. I still remain open minded. But again, all I am receiving from a believer, is that I should go by what I "feel." It is not in my nature to go by feelings. Before I commit my life to something I would desire at least some solid proof.

The problem is, as I've come to realize (although, I admit that just because I came to this realization.. which makes it 'true' for me, it might not be 'true' for everyone) just as we label ourselves 'Theist', 'Atheist', etc., so also we attach too narrow and constrictive a definition to words, and the accompanying biases and constraints that they impose.. subtly, even subconsciously.  Just what would you accept as proof?? What if what is offered to you at some future time as a spiritual experience, or 'epiphany', you dismiss as something other than what it truly is.. just because you've hardened yourself to dismiss such an experience??? Possibly a psychological filter, or 'defense mechanism' to protect your existing world view? What if God gives you a gift, a message, a sign, and experience.. and because God doesn't play by your rules, or even acknowledge that you have barriers set up to prevent you from acknowledging what you  might experience.. well friend, in such a hypothetical case (which I believe in fact is a common occurence) you would have dismissed your 'proof', or 'evidence', because you won't accept what your senses, mind, and heart are telling you. But having said that, I can see you point.. after all, I once believed as you.


Sat Nam

Alas, friends, I have to work on the weekend.. such is life. I think it's important for me to say, this being an Atheist Forum, and as the banner reads, ".. for secular discussion", I'm not trying to bring anyone to religion. If the majority of the members of this forum subscribe to an ultra-logical, rational, and Secular world view, and this makes them feel comfortable in all areas of life, as well as in their own skin.. then my goodness, by all means I'm not suggesting that any of you would be better off joining some Hill Billy Church and dancing yourself silly while juggling rattlesnakes... I'm questioning assertions and occasionally expanding the discussion to consider topics or points of view that seem to be in omission... and also to Enlighten.. after all, my own Gurus tell us:

QuoteIf you want to be Enlightened, then Be a Light unto yourself and unto others.

 and if you're good enough to consider my requests and arguments worthy of comment, great, of not, you're completely free to dismiss anything I might have to say.

Sat Nam

I think you mistake my awareness of psychological illusion for a hardened heart. For it is what my studies have shown that will most likely hinder a belief in God founded on a feeling. Is that wrong? No. Not unless you have a psychological analysis or theory that can disprove that.

The possibility that your god is right and others aren't is so unlikely when the idea of god(s) is common among humans. One religion cannot be correct because each forges its own rules based on their perception of how things should be. However, amongst humans we cannot agree on a right and a wrong. Example: I believe abortion is wrong as I am looking at the rights of the babe. Another sees the rights of the woman being higher. Both have equally good intentions, we just see things differently. No one is right, and no one is wrong. Why would god create me and program in my moral fiber something contrary to his? It would mean denying what is right (I say "is" because the world is only what the mind makes it, thus it is wrong to me) to fake following something which will involuntarily be labeled a tyrant for making me turn on my other beliefs. It is foolish to let one conviction change them all.

Also, keep in mind we can know things and still be wrong about them.

Quote from: "Sophus"I think you mistake my awareness of psychological illusion for a hardened heart. For it is what my studies have shown that will most likely hinder a belief in God founded on a feeling. Is that wrong? No. Not unless you have a psychological analysis or theory that can disprove that.

The possibility that your god is right and others aren't is so unlikely when the idea of god(s) is common among humans. One religion cannot be correct because each forges its own rules based on their perception of how things should be. However, amongst humans we cannot agree on a right and a wrong. Example: I believe abortion is wrong as I am looking at the rights of the babe. Another sees the rights of the woman being higher. Both have equally good intentions, we just see things differently. No one is right, and no one is wrong. Why would god create me and program in my moral fiber something contrary to his? It would mean denying what is right (I say "is" because the world is only what the mind makes it, thus it is wrong to me) to fake following something which will involuntarily be labeled a tyrant for making me turn on my other beliefs. It is foolish to let one conviction change them all.

Also, keep in mind we can know things and still be wrong about them.

Friend, quickly:

I seem to have you at a disadvantage because you know next to nothing about my faith.. which you are not obliged to anyway, so let me tell you this: We Sikhs believe that there are many paths to God, that no particular faith has exclusive rights! We also believe that anyone can find 'God' within the framework of any major accepted religion. We believe that we have a proven path to God.. and it has surely worked for me and millions of other Sikhs.. we are the world's 5th largest religion. As you say, the 'idea' of 'God' is common among humans, and now scientists even point to a 'God Section' of the brain.. maybe, maybe not. But it all depends on how your define 'God' and what your concept of God is.. when you just say 'God' and expect that this means the same thing to every faith, even loosely, then this is wrong. The Dharmic concept of God is both different to, and largely incompatible with the Abrahamic concept of God, etc.

You're also talking about moral relativism, another topic entirely. Well, you know what road is paved with 'Good Intentions'.. we all know. In other words, good intentions alone can still be 100% wrong..

I'm not sure that God programmed moral relativism into you, as much as society and your own proclivities.. nature and nurture.

Ok, enough here.. I'll concede you have made your point. Have a nice day.


Sat Nam

Quote from: "karakara"... to always be aware of the axiom: "Correlation does not prove causation".

 :unsure:

I voted 'other' because to me Jesus is an rather complicated concept.  For me, Jesus is a larger-than-life character than may have been based on a real person or early political movement towards pacifism.  There is insufficient evidence to make any real conclusions, though.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "karakara"... to always be aware of the axiom: "Correlation does not prove causation".

 :unsure:

The only exception(s) that I need to cite in order to bust that assertion that (I paraphrase) "All religions share a common genesis" are any 'Revelation-based Faiths', such as Islam and ... Sikhism. Our founding Guru, Siri Guru Nanak Dev Sahib Ji, received a revelation from God about the true nature of man, God, The Divine, and our relationship to each other. This type of foundation differs dramatically from a religion, such as Hinduism, which can trace it's theological history back many thousands of years, develops over a long period of time in thousands of incremental steps by many people and has a cosmology based on ancient mythologies, epic and heroic tales, and multiple deities classic Jungian archetype-based heroes and epic tales ... actually, these 'deities' are not a sign of polytheism, but Vedic/Hindu manifestations of the one God. Scholars who study Hinduism and the religious and cultural development of India can't really put their finger on the earliest dates/examples of myth/deities that survive today.. and have influenced the development of the religion(s) and basic Hindu culture for thousands of years.. it's quite likely that the Aryan tribes who invaded the subcontinent thousands of years ago from the north .. can trace epic tales and myths which eventually became the Vedas/Upanishads  back tens of thousands of years.. this is classic, classic Jung/Campbell.

Who's the guy in your avatar??

Voted other.  He didn't exist as depicted, but as with a lot of myths, there is probably some kernel of truth to the whole thing.  I suspect that if we could go back in time we'd be shocked at the disparity between the Christ of imagination and any historical Jesus.  But I'm glad you put the extra options, Titan, as the "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" argument, in its classic form, begins by discounting the possibility that he was any different than described in the Bible.

I could elaborate, but I've already made this post late into this thread and I'm sure someone else has made any points I would have, and with greater clarity and presence of mind.  

Quote from: "karakara"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "karakara"... to always be aware of the axiom: "Correlation does not prove causation".

 :raised:  Note that something being written in stone, does not count as certain in this kind of forum.  ;)

QuoteThe only exception(s) that I need to cite in order to bust that assertion that (I paraphrase) "All religions share a common genesis" This type of foundation differs dramatically from a religion, such as Hinduism, which can trace it's theological history back many thousands of years

Uhmmmm, no. I don't think you have understood Jung correctly. As far as I know, he was making a point about psychology. But you refute it as if it were a sociological/anthropological assertion. It is not! I'm sure it's correct that your religion has a different foundation historically, but to turn Jung upside down, you have to adress his asseertions in the right field.

QuoteNote that something being written in stone, does not count as certain in this kind of forum. ;)

Aber nateurlich, vielen Dank, Ich kenne dieses Buch! I had a feeling you were a Nietzsche fan when I saw your name. Quite the guy, quite the thinker.. quite the character! But I think of despair when I think of him.. and of the impossibility of his 'SuperMan'.. who would want to live in Nietzsche's world??? We couldn't make enough prozac... yes, he said 'God is Dead', but didn't he mean that in the respect that in his day he saw religion and concepts of God as obsolete, as untenable, that people were willingly leaving church and God behind to believe in something else?? Didn't he also despise anyone who attached false 'religious-like' beliefs to, say, secularism, marxism, science.. as equally folly and futile.. he  thought men created religion and Gods out of fear... I disagree wit much of what he said, but I also acknowledge that he was spot on , on many things.. Nietzsche is trouble to me and to many people... wass fuer ein gefaerlicher Mann, gefaerliche Meinungen, Gedaenken!

Let's see.. could that possibly be, Yuru Gagarin.. I'm not so sure he changed anything, in as much as what he accomplished made us take notice.. I think some of the photographs from the moon of the earth, as so inspiring to Carl Sagan, did even more.. by U.S. astronauts...

ya sovsem, polnost'yu znakom s Yurim Gagarinom, s etoj istoriej!.. ... I read a bit about Gagarin when I was a student of Russian language.. Soviets published millions of book about him, quite the 'Geroj'/hero. Sorry folks, just having a little fun with Russian, love the language, almost as good for poetry as Punjabi ;-)

QuoteUhmmmm, no. I don't think you have understood Jung correctly. As far as I know, he was making a point about psychology. But you refute it as if it were a sociological/anthropological assertion. It is not! I'm sure it's correct that your religion has a different foundation historically, but to turn Jung upside down, you have to adress his asseertions in the right field.

Yes, you are 100% correct about Jung, I stand corrected, especially as I did not elaborate on how I was referencing Jung.. quite misleading and inaccurate, sorry. I was making the leap into sociological/(cultural)anthropological territory as was alluding to Joseph Campbell's work and theories based upon Jungian Archetypes.. whether they're totally valid or not is a matter of debate.

Thanks for your corrections. About Nietzsche again, I know atheists love to quote his 'God Is Dead' , but what was he really saying, and is this actually what he believed, and is it anything worthy of carrying as your banner?? I don't think so.

Quote from: "karakara"I'm using it as it's used very often by both Professors and authors of psychological and Statistics tomes and in general lecture vernacular..  if I'm guilty in butchering or misusing axiom, at least I'm in good company. I'm surprised, considering your background, that you haven't heard yourself in a class or come across it in print.

I highly doubt this!! If they're professors at any decent university, they won't use the term losely like that. I've heard the term numerous times in class and seen it countless times on print, but never seen or heard misused (by real professors anyway), like you claim. Except for on the internet of course. Where do/did you go to school??? Have you heard this yourself??
And just because it's on the web, doesn't mean you're in good company  :hail:

QuoteYes, you are 100% correct about Jung, I stand corrected, especially as I did not elaborate on how I was referencing Jung.. quite misleading and inaccurate, sorry. I was making the leap into sociological/(cultural)anthropological territory as was alluding to Joseph Campbell's work and theories based upon Jungian Archetypes.. whether they're totally valid or not is a matter of debate.

Thanks for your corrections.

You're welcome, mate    Nice to see a religious guy admit a flaw! And thanks for the remarks on Campbell, I'll have to check up on that.

[quote="karakara] About Nietzsche again, I know atheists love to quote his 'God Is Dead' , but what was he really saying, and is this actually what he believed, and is it anything worthy of carrying as your banner?? I don't think so.[/quote]

As I pointed out, this is a very interesting question, I'll set up a thread in the philosophy section. I sure hope you will contribute, as you seem to be an intelligent guy. And it's always interesting discussing this with people of a different opinion on Nietzsche.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "karakara"I'm using it as it's used very often by both Professors and authors of psychological and Statistics tomes and in general lecture vernacular..  if I'm guilty in butchering or misusing axiom, at least I'm in good company. I'm surprised, considering your background, that you haven't heard yourself in a class or come across it in print.

I highly doubt this!! If they're professors at any decent university, they won't use the term losely like that. I've heard the term numerous times in class and seen it countless times on print, but never seen or heard misused (by real professors anyway), like you claim. Except for on the internet of course. Where do/did you go to school??? Have you heard this yourself??
And just because it's on the web, doesn't mean you're in good company  :hail:

Yes, perspective is all-important.

QuoteYes, you are 100% correct about Jung, I stand corrected, especially as I did not elaborate on how I was referencing Jung.. quite misleading and inaccurate, sorry. I was making the leap into sociological/(cultural)anthropological territory as was alluding to Joseph Campbell's work and theories based upon Jungian Archetypes.. whether they're totally valid or not is a matter of debate.

Thanks for your corrections.

You're welcome, mate    Nice to see a religious guy admit a flaw! And thanks for the remarks on Campbell, I'll have to check up on that.

Well, when you're wrong, you're wrong.. unless, you also happen to be right: this is getting philosophical...

Quote from: "Zarathustra"For the U.S. citizens maybe.  But you are correct on Gagarin  :nerd:

Quote from: "karakara"You mean, just because something can be found online, doesn't mean it's guaranteed factual?... I'll have to look into that ;-)

 :eek:  ;)

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"For the U.S. citizens maybe.  But you are correct on Gagarin  :nerd:

You are correct! I didn't state that he was correct on the first name though. I was actually impressed, since a lot of americans have never heard of him.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"For the U.S. citizens maybe.  But you are correct on Gagarin  :nerd:

Nu, da. Oshibka moya! Konyechno, vy sovsem pravy!

hey, a typo.

Quote from: "karakara"Nu, da. Oshibka moya! Konyechno, vy sovsem pravy!

hey, a typo.

Konyechno ya soverschenno prav. (Of course I'm absolutely right  :beer:

I'm sorry, I got lost in the posts, what was the last post I needed to respond to? Kyu, can you help me out a little?

Quote from: "Titan"I'm sorry, I got lost in the posts, what was the last post I needed to respond to? Kyu, can you help me out a little?

I haven't been in it since page 3 (it seemed to be overtaken by karakara) but I don't think you actually answered my post which is here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2150&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=31).

Kyu

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSo what? Surely that plays into my argument that there is very little evidence to support the existence of your Jesus?

Why? Because it didn't spread around the globe in an instant?

No because if there were relatively few followers the evidence would be far more scarce so it plays into my argument that there is no real evidence for the bloke.

You are basing this distinction on what exactly? You are essentially claiming that if he has anymore people mentioning him it feeds into the fact that people were perpetuating the myth, if there were less then it means that there was no real evidence for him. Do you have a precise number of first hand accounts you need?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"But with the claims you are making concerning the validity of events in history you had better be ready to apply said methods to all historical accounts and see what remains. We haven't gotten to whether the essential claims of Christianity are true or not, merely that someone existed around that time and made such an indelible impact on the lives of the commoners that the world was forever changed.

No, what I am arguing is about the validity of a piece of fiction not history.

That is your belief, one which I hope to pull you towards a more logical conclusion.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"I know this is unlikely, but would you ever be interested in visiting Indonesia for a few weeks. I know this sounds weird but if you just pay for the airfare my family will provide food and transportation and everything. The reason I say this is because there are some events that I really would like your explanation on that occur in Indonesia quite frequently, things that have eye witness testimony from multiple accounts. If these things are all easily explained by science I would love to know. But this is an honest proposal, if you are interested.

I would at some point (and if so I genuinely would like to meet you ... not everything has to be about religion) but right now I'm afraid I can't afford it. My next planned trip abroad is to Auschwitz anyway, hopefully next year.

Auschwitz is a place that I too would like to visit. Don't worry, money is always a problem and I won't hold this against you. I'm currently in the US anyway.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"No, I'm talking about when Christianity first started. People simply could have said: "Where was he buried and who was guarding the tomb" and the fraud could have been discovered that simply.

I'm not sure what your point is ... are you saying it is a fraud or is not and are you only referring to a tomb back then or now?

No, I'm saying it isn't a fraud and I'm referring to the tomb back then. Because of the close proximity there were people who could have said "Where was he buried?" and proven the disciples wrong. Also, there are some very interesting elements to the story that make it very unlikely for it to have been a myth.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Dr. William F. Albright argued "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New testament critics today."

Albright was a biblical archaeologist I believe ... his views are fairly outmoded so I'm not sure why I should take the statement of someone so evidently biased towards a particular POV as valid. That said it seems to be a fairly common view that most of the books of the bible were broadly speaking in existence by the 1st Century CE.

It will be very interesting to see what this Codex bible reveals don't you think?

Okay so you accept that the books were written AT LEAST before the year 100 A.D.?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Not only that, but one of the prophecies of Christ came true during the fall of Jerusalem.

A prophecy probably included after the event ... now you may think, "well he would say that" and of course you'd be correct, I would BUT one huge problem with your bible is that there appear to be so many cuts and additions since the books were originally written (Lord knows what they would have done if they'd been able to cut & paste on computers) that it is hard to tell what si genuine and what is not.

Like I say ... the Codex is going to be interesting particularly since it bears directly on key claims made by Christians.

But the account doesn't include many other prophecies that would have made it more valid. Do you have evidence that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem? Second, do you realize how detail oriented early scribes were in copying the documents? I think you are grossly underestimating their attention to detail.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThat's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

I would assume the books had been in place longer than that in some form even if it was only Gnostic but ultimately, this idea that Christians were the persecuted ones doesn't really hold water does it? Under Roman rule just about everybody but Romans were persecuted.

They persecuted quite a few people but not strictly for their religious beliefs. Can you site a group that was tortured as much as the Christians were? You also didn't answer my question. Why would they make up a character that supposedly existed only a few decades prior and then die for it?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"It is hardly uncommon for historians to utilize modern words to describe titles of the past so that they make more sense or to lump different titles under one title.

The relevant point being?

That it doesn't represent a flaw in the Tacitus account.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"I burped...can you track it? Can you prove it happened? What exactly does a "trail of evidence" entail? I have a few miracles I would like to site but I don't know what you are qualifying as evidence in this case.

Would I care to want to prove or disprove it? I think not. If there is no evidence for a so -called miracle then it can be dismissed.

Eye-Witness testimony good enough for you?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Do you think the Romans were kept up to date on every sect creation in their entire empire? Honestly?

I think Roman communications were quite excellent, their record keeping meticulous so yes I would say they were aware of most things in their empire and even if a sect existed almost unknown because of low numbers again it just plays into my basic argument.

It may have been excellent but there is no reason for them to keep track of the rebellious Jewish sects. How many of those authors refer to the Zealots that brought about the destruction of jerusalem?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteWell within scope time-wise.

Not for it to have been a major issue in the area yet.

And the point you're making is?

It wouldn't have crossed their literary radar. There was no point of writing it because it was hardly relevant at the time.

Quote

QuoteMaybe but Pliny reports numerous such tales believed by many people, even without magic ...one might reasonably suspect he'd report tales of the miraculous

Quote from: "Titan"Jesus Christ.

Such as?

From Infidels.org, "He says Varro reported on two different occasions seeing "a person carried out on a bier to burial who returned home on foot," besides witnessing the apparent resurrection of his uncle-in-law Corfidius."

Does his account give validity to the event for you?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"So hypothetically, if there weren't any satires of an event by a particular author we can hold that it didn't happen?

That's not what I said is it? What I said was essentially saying was that resurrection was a common them for satire at the time so its appearance in biblical stories might not be so unusual.

But why would he mock a small idea of resurrection that had just sprouted? Why not insult the concept as a whole?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Do you realize what you are suggesting here? I have shown you how many of these people wouldn't have had the chance to hear about Jesus or Christianity or wouldn't have had a reason to write about it. Since Remsberg didn't even do such inquiry I don't hold his works in high regard. But I hold you in high enough regard that if there was one who you believe absolutely should have mentioned Christ I'll definitely look into it.

Fine but I'm still not doing your research for you.

All you have to do is give me a few of the names...I'll do the research and find out whether they are valid problems.

Quote from: "Titan"Which part of his texts do not conform to his works as a whole? Besides the line I mentioned?

Specifically the part is in occurs in Book 18 of "Antiquities Of The Jews" and is problematic (possibly inserted) because Origen claimed Josephus did not recognise Jesus as any kind of saviour and because the passage concerned is highly pro-Christian and not in keeping with the usual style of Josephus's work (this is the "Wish You Were Here" bit I was referring to). Many historians reject this passage entirely but others maintain the passage was altered not inserted and whilst not pro-Christian did refer to Jesus Christ ... if so that would, I suppose, constitute possible evidence for the existence of a literal Jesus. [/quote]
I already pointed out that that section may not have been part of his text. I also asked why they picked Josephus and not one of the other Roman authors? Why not many of them? Why just him? The addition seems to be more of a "look what he said, that would be perfect if we added this" over "he hasn't mentioned anything of Jesus, let's put something about Jesus in here."

Quote from: "Titan"You are basing this distinction on what exactly? You are essentially claiming that if he has anymore people mentioning him it feeds into the fact that people were perpetuating the myth, if there were less then it means that there was no real evidence for him. Do you have a precise number of first hand accounts you need?

The point I am making is that fewer people in the religion at the time would make it less noticeable to the then authorities and explain why there were so few records BUT it could be equally well explained by it never actually happening at all. In that sense it plays towards my version.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo, what I am arguing is about the validity of a piece of fiction not history.

That is your belief, one which I hope to pull you towards a more logical conclusion.

More logical? In whose book?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI'm not sure what your point is ... are you saying it is a fraud or is not and are you only referring to a tomb back then or now?

No, I'm saying it isn't a fraud and I'm referring to the tomb back then. Because of the close proximity there were people who could have said "Where was he buried?" and proven the disciples wrong. Also, there are some very interesting elements to the story that make it very unlikely for it to have been a myth.

Still confused so I'll ask it straight, is the tomb currently claimed by some to be the tomb of Jesus Christ or is it just a tomb that might be the tomb of Jesus Christ?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteIt will be very interesting to see what this Codex bible reveals don't you think?

Okay so you accept that the books were written AT LEAST before the year 100 A.D.?

As a working assumption back by some significant expert opinion yes.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteLike I say ... the Codex is going to be interesting particularly since it bears directly on key claims made by Christians.

But the account doesn't include many other prophecies that would have made it more valid. Do you have evidence that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem? Second, do you realize how detail oriented early scribes were in copying the documents? I think you are grossly underestimating their attention to detail.

The codex account? Apparently it is, at 1500 years old (IIRC), the oldest bible known and therefore presumed to be closer to the original version than any other. No (although there are many scholars who believe that this is how much of the bible was written), do you have evidence that it wasn't? You see the thing is you cannot use the contents of a single book (yeah I know it was many books but let's set that aside for now) with a specific agenda (to promote the religion of Christianity) as validatable evidence for anything in the real world. That is why the bible is considered an historical source rather than actual history by most historians. Do you realise how difficult it would be to transcribe the bible? Considerably more than 600 printed pages (today) x what? 2000 words per page? And each one transcribed individually?

To quote a review of Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus":

QuoteEhrman's fascinating book lifts the lid off the process by which the world has inherited the Bible in its current form, or forms. In very readable and often amusing style he explains the difficulties inherent in translating from source texts which have been written down without the convenience of punctuation or even spaces between words, texts which are themselves copies several generations removed from the originals and therefore rife with transcription errors. He also explains the way in which modern translators go about inferring where the errors are, thereby enabling revisions which may return us more closely to the original.

In addition to transcription errors, the ancient scribes apparently imposed their own logic on the texts, "correcting" words or passages which did not comply with their own view of how the stories should go. There are also instances where analysis of the vocabulary indicates certain passages have been supplemented by additional narrative in order to tidy it up a little.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThat's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

Sure, why not? How long ago was Wako? Look how many died there? And this idea of the poor Christians dying for their beliefs is a bit overplayed by your lot isn't it?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI would assume the books had been in place longer than that in some form even if it was only Gnostic but ultimately, this idea that Christians were the persecuted ones doesn't really hold water does it? Under Roman rule just about everybody but Romans were persecuted.

They persecuted quite a few people but not strictly for their religious beliefs. Can you site a group that was tortured as much as the Christians were? You also didn't answer my question. Why would they make up a character that supposedly existed only a few decades prior and then die for it?

I think you have to demonstrate that the Christians were as persecuted as you claim, I'm certainly not going to accept it on the basis that you believe it or that someone else with a pro-Christian agenda says so. And again Wako.

Quote from: "Titan"That it doesn't represent a flaw in the Tacitus account.

On the basis of the things I've posted so far I believe that to be wrong.

Quote from: "Titan"Eye-Witness testimony good enough for you?

If you say you burped then fine you burped, I don't care. If, however, you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth then I might choose to dispute it.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI think Roman communications were quite excellent, their record keeping meticulous so yes I would say they were aware of most things in their empire and even if a sect existed almost unknown because of low numbers again it just plays into my basic argument.

It may have been excellent but there is no reason for them to keep track of the rebellious Jewish sects. How many of those authors refer to the Zealots that brought about the destruction of jerusalem?

And as I said the Romans were meticulous record keepers, they had census's in every country and guard house records have been shown to be things of great accuracy ... I hardly think something as notable as rebels would be ignored. It would have been tracked and, when appropriate, viciously put down.

Quote from: "Titan"It wouldn't have crossed their literary radar. There was no point of writing it because it was hardly relevant at the time.

I disagree (see above)

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteFrom Infidels.org, "He says Varro reported on two different occasions seeing "a person carried out on a bier to burial who returned home on foot," besides witnessing the apparent resurrection of his uncle-in-law Corfidius."

Does his account give validity to the event for you?

No but it validates that the idea of resurrection was not an uncommon one at the time.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThat's not what I said is it? What I said was essentially saying was that resurrection was a common them for satire at the time so its appearance in biblical stories might not be so unusual.

But why would he mock a small idea of resurrection that had just sprouted? Why not insult the concept as a whole?

I've no idea, I'm not a telepath let alone a time traveller.

Quote from: "Titan"All you have to do is give me a few of the names...I'll do the research and find out whether they are valid problems.

You know where the post is.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSpecifically the part is in occurs in Book 18 of "Antiquities Of The Jews" and is problematic (possibly inserted) because Origen claimed Josephus did not recognise Jesus as any kind of saviour and because the passage concerned is highly pro-Christian and not in keeping with the usual style of Josephus's work (this is the "Wish You Were Here" bit I was referring to). Many historians reject this passage entirely but others maintain the passage was altered not inserted and whilst not pro-Christian did refer to Jesus Christ ... if so that would, I suppose, constitute possible evidence for the existence of a literal Jesus.

I already pointed out that that section may not have been part of his text. I also asked why they picked Josephus and not one of the other Roman authors? Why not many of them? Why just him? The addition seems to be more of a "look what he said, that would be perfect if we added this" over "he hasn't mentioned anything of Jesus, let's put something about Jesus in here."

The point is that Josephus IS cited as evidence that there was a literal Jesus Christ.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Titan"You are basing this distinction on what exactly? You are essentially claiming that if he has anymore people mentioning him it feeds into the fact that people were perpetuating the myth, if there were less then it means that there was no real evidence for him. Do you have a precise number of first hand accounts you need?

The point I am making is that fewer people in the religion at the time would make it less noticeable to the then authorities and explain why there were so few records BUT it could be equally well explained by it never actually happening at all. In that sense it plays towards my version.

So the entire world was changed by a fictitious man? History doesn't support your version.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo, what I am arguing is about the validity of a piece of fiction not history.

That is your belief, one which I hope to pull you towards a more logical conclusion.

More logical? In whose book?

Logic isn't whatever we want to be. There are real forms of logic and I hope to pull you towards Christianity with true logic and rationality.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI'm not sure what your point is ... are you saying it is a fraud or is not and are you only referring to a tomb back then or now?

No, I'm saying it isn't a fraud and I'm referring to the tomb back then. Because of the close proximity there were people who could have said "Where was he buried?" and proven the disciples wrong. Also, there are some very interesting elements to the story that make it very unlikely for it to have been a myth.

Still confused so I'll ask it straight, is the tomb currently claimed by some to be the tomb of Jesus Christ or is it just a tomb that might be the tomb of Jesus Christ?

I don't know, it doesn't matter much. If people think it is they will start worshiping the tomb which is detrimental to faith.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteIt will be very interesting to see what this Codex bible reveals don't you think?

Okay so you accept that the books were written AT LEAST before the year 100 A.D.?

As a working assumption back by some significant expert opinion yes.

Okay, excellent, so we are AT LEAST within a handful decades.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteLike I say ... the Codex is going to be interesting particularly since it bears directly on key claims made by Christians.

But the account doesn't include many other prophecies that would have made it more valid. Do you have evidence that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem? Second, do you realize how detail oriented early scribes were in copying the documents? I think you are grossly underestimating their attention to detail.

The codex account? Apparently it is, at 1500 years old (IIRC), the oldest bible known and therefore presumed to be closer to the original version than any other. No (although there are many scholars who believe that this is how much of the bible was written), do you have evidence that it wasn't? You see the thing is you cannot use the contents of a single book (yeah I know it was many books but let's set that aside for now) with a specific agenda (to promote the religion of Christianity) as validatable evidence for anything in the real world. That is why the bible is considered an historical source rather than actual history by most historians. Do you realise how difficult it would be to transcribe the bible? Considerably more than 600 printed pages (today) x what? 2000 words per page? And each one transcribed individually?

That is actually incorrect, they would write it themselves, yes but it would be reviewed thoroughly.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThat's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

Sure, why not? How long ago was Wako? Look how many died there? And this idea of the poor Christians dying for their beliefs is a bit overplayed by your lot isn't it?

I think you are completely disconnected from the world of Christian sacrifice. You need an eye opener to see what is really going on out there. It isn't overplayed at all, if anything it is underplayed.
What character did the Waco people make up and die defending? I think you are making some stuff up.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI would assume the books had been in place longer than that in some form even if it was only Gnostic but ultimately, this idea that Christians were the persecuted ones doesn't really hold water does it? Under Roman rule just about everybody but Romans were persecuted.

They persecuted quite a few people but not strictly for their religious beliefs. Can you site a group that was tortured as much as the Christians were? You also didn't answer my question. Why would they make up a character that supposedly existed only a few decades prior and then die for it?

I think you have to demonstrate that the Christians were as persecuted as you claim, I'm certainly not going to accept it on the basis that you believe it or that someone else with a pro-Christian agenda says so. And again Wako.

You are going to have to give me more background for "Wako."

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Eye-Witness testimony good enough for you?

If you say you burped then fine you burped, I don't care. If, however, you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth then I might choose to dispute it.

What if you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth and 20 people adamantly agree even if they have nothing to gain from the story.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI think Roman communications were quite excellent, their record keeping meticulous so yes I would say they were aware of most things in their empire and even if a sect existed almost unknown because of low numbers again it just plays into my basic argument.

It may have been excellent but there is no reason for them to keep track of the rebellious Jewish sects. How many of those authors refer to the Zealots that brought about the destruction of jerusalem?

And as I said the Romans were meticulous record keepers, they had census's in every country and guard house records have been shown to be things of great accuracy ... I hardly think something as notable as rebels would be ignored. It would have been tracked and, when appropriate, viciously put down.

Okay, can you point me to the section of the Roman records where they talk about various small rebellions?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteFrom Infidels.org, "He says Varro reported on two different occasions seeing "a person carried out on a bier to burial who returned home on foot," besides witnessing the apparent resurrection of his uncle-in-law Corfidius."

Does his account give validity to the event for you?

No but it validates that the idea of resurrection was not an uncommon one at the time.

But not resurrection fiction that you get tortured and punished for.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThat's not what I said is it? What I said was essentially saying was that resurrection was a common them for satire at the time so its appearance in biblical stories might not be so unusual.

But why would he mock a small idea of resurrection that had just sprouted? Why not insult the concept as a whole?

I've no idea, I'm not a telepath let alone a time traveller.

So your reasoning falls apart...you haven't thought through it. My theory has less assumptions and "I'm not sure"s

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"All you have to do is give me a few of the names...I'll do the research and find out whether they are valid problems.

You know where the post is.

I said a few, pick your favorites, the ones that definitely should have mentioned him. I'll do ALL the research and dissect it.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSpecifically the part is in occurs in Book 18 of "Antiquities Of The Jews" and is problematic (possibly inserted) because Origen claimed Josephus did not recognise Jesus as any kind of saviour and because the passage concerned is highly pro-Christian and not in keeping with the usual style of Josephus's work (this is the "Wish You Were Here" bit I was referring to). Many historians reject this passage entirely but others maintain the passage was altered not inserted and whilst not pro-Christian did refer to Jesus Christ ... if so that would, I suppose, constitute possible evidence for the existence of a literal Jesus.

I already pointed out that that section may not have been part of his text. I also asked why they picked Josephus and not one of the other Roman authors? Why not many of them? Why just him? The addition seems to be more of a "look what he said, that would be perfect if we added this" over "he hasn't mentioned anything of Jesus, let's put something about Jesus in here."

The point is that Josephus IS cited as evidence that there was a literal Jesus Christ.

Only because he mentions it. Your reasonign is circular...they picked Josephus because he mentioned Jesus, he mentioned Jesus because they edited his texts. Please base your reasoning on something more well foundd.

Quote from: "Titan"Logic isn't whatever we want to be. There are real forms of logic and I hope to pull you towards Christianity with true logic and rationality.

Titan, with all due respect, we have no interest in this. I don't mean we have no interest in "true logic and rationality;" rather, I mean we have as much interest in being pulled toward Christianity via logic as Christians have of being pulled toward atheism using charisma, creative oration and guilt.

The fact remains that, as far as logic and reason go, the nonreligious stance always has a leg up on the religious one, simply because one is based in the realm of reality and the other in the realm of the spirit (whatever that may be).

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThe point I am making is that fewer people in the religion at the time would make it less noticeable to the then authorities and explain why there were so few records BUT it could be equally well explained by it never actually happening at all. In that sense it plays towards my version.

So the entire world was changed by a fictitious man? History doesn't support your version.

Actually, history doesn't support your version and yes I see that as entirely possible.

Look at it this way ... whether or not he existed, once Jesus was dead, you no longer need the primary to support the tale as it is self-supporting. IOW from, say, 50CE you only have the stories (by which I mean tales, not necessarily fiction), there's no body (because it has supposedly risen to the heavens) and all you really have is word of mouth to be later codified by various individuals. So what we're really arguing about here is that 50 year period.

Add to it this ... was Haile Selassi a good man? Some say that he was the most brutal dictator to his people and upon his death left 11 billion dollars in a Swiss account yet he is revered by millions of Rastafari as their god emperor on Earth. Ghandi is revered/remembered as a good man and maybe he was but I am willing to bet that he wasn't as good as current day claims of him say he was. Mother Teresa is held up (was held up within her lifetime) as an icon of virtue and ran one Bombay's most well funded Catholic institutions for the poor & needy yet she is believed to have re-used hypodermics, left patients screaming in pain because she believe pain brought you closer to "God" and funnelled most of the funds she got (intended by the donors to support her clinic) back to the coffers of Rome. What was she doing? Paving her way to Heaven?

What I am trying to get across to you is that people are not necessarily what they appear to be even when they are alive and the person vs the publicly perceived persona (particularly a long time after they lived and died or rose into the clouds) are two distinct things which may or may not closely align but more to the point that the principal of a given tale is not needed after a time and may not be needed at all if something was there in its place.  

Your Jesus Christ may have existed but equally he may not have because they never had long distance communications beyond the spoken and written word (no camera, no video, no radio, no TV) so all the information people got would have been through other and not through a medium you could at least partially trust. IOW many, many Christians in that time (probably the vast majority) would never even have seen their Christ if he existed and given the lack of hard evidence and eyewitness accounts for him it is not a huge leap to assume he never existed at all.

It's that simple and I take the basic position that I want evidence before I accept he existed ... I will not assume he did. Why? Because I can.

Quote from: "Titan"Logic isn't whatever we want to be. There are real forms of logic and I hope to pull you towards Christianity with true logic and rationality.

Well you haven't succeeded so far so good luck with that particular piece of futility.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteStill confused so I'll ask it straight, is the tomb currently claimed by some to be the tomb of Jesus Christ or is it just a tomb that might be the tomb of Jesus Christ?

I don't know, it doesn't matter much. If people think it is they will start worshiping the tomb which is detrimental to faith.

Of course it matters though I concede not much to this discussion if you're not claiming it (the modern discovery) is his tomb.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThe codex account? Apparently it is, at 1500 years old (IIRC), the oldest bible known and therefore presumed to be closer to the original version than any other. No (although there are many scholars who believe that this is how much of the bible was written), do you have evidence that it wasn't? You see the thing is you cannot use the contents of a single book (yeah I know it was many books but let's set that aside for now) with a specific agenda (to promote the religion of Christianity) as validatable evidence for anything in the real world. That is why the bible is considered an historical source rather than actual history by most historians. Do you realise how difficult it would be to transcribe the bible? Considerably more than 600 printed pages (today) x what? 2000 words per page? And each one transcribed individually?

That is actually incorrect, they would write it themselves, yes but it would be reviewed thoroughly.

And, given the evidence historians have of such transcription errors and personal interpretations (including many other historical works not necessarily biblical) along with a through knowledge of how people tend to do such things, you know that how?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSure, why not? How long ago was Wako? Look how many died there? And this idea of the poor Christians dying for their beliefs is a bit overplayed by your lot isn't it?

I think you are completely disconnected from the world of Christian sacrifice. You need an eye opener to see what is really going on out there. It isn't overplayed at all, if anything it is underplayed.
What character did the Waco people make up and die defending? I think you are making some stuff up.

And I think you are completely over-inflating the claim of Christian sacrifice.

The Wako people, led by David Koresh, died defending their beliefs that that the second coming of Christ was about to occur but they key point is that they believed so utterly in their leader. Arguably it isn't a good example because of the claims and counter-claims over who was to blame for the deaths of so many.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI think you have to demonstrate that the Christians were as persecuted as you claim, I'm certainly not going to accept it on the basis that you believe it or that someone else with a pro-Christian agenda says so. And again Wako.

You are going to have to give me more background for "Wako."

Scrap Wako (I accept it was a poor example, at least for now) ... what about the other evidence you need to prove your persecution claim?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteIf you say you burped then fine you burped, I don't care. If, however, you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth then I might choose to dispute it.

What if you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth and 20 people adamantly agree even if they have nothing to gain from the story.

There're 2 billion Christians worldwide who believe they have the right saviour, there's another 2 billion Muslims, who knows how many Jews and other religions who all think they have the right saviour or other answer ... what do you think I am going to say to that?

As I said earlier, I couldn't care less whether you burped elephants, I would care a lot more if you said those elephants would lead us to spiritual paradise meaning Earthly life was irrelevant and defined a moral code by which should now live (though in truth I'd just piss myself laughing)!

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAnd as I said the Romans were meticulous record keepers, they had census's in every country and guard house records have been shown to be things of great accuracy ... I hardly think something as notable as rebels would be ignored. It would have been tracked and, when appropriate, viciously put down.

Okay, can you point me to the section of the Roman records where they talk about various small rebellions?

Don't be foolish, I can no more do that than I can give you the specific evidence for the big bang, but my understanding is that the historians have such evidence. However, from the "Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems (http://aspe.hhs.gov/DATACNCL/1973privacy/tocprefacemembers.htm)" July, 1973 it says, "Systematic record keeping in the ancient world reached a high point during the Roman Empire and then degenerated with the decline of strong central government." So no doubt you'll realise that what I am saying in general terms at least (I have few doubts you'll object to specifics) is correct about the Romans ... they were meticulous record keepers.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo but it validates that the idea of resurrection was not an uncommon one at the time.

But not resurrection fiction that you get tortured and punished for.

And I repeat that you have to justify that claim first ... I am not accepting it from you without good reason.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI've no idea, I'm not a telepath let alone a time traveller.

So your reasoning falls apart...you haven't thought through it. My theory has less assumptions and "I'm not sure"s

Not at all because all I am saying is what was said not what the thought or why they did something.

Quote from: "Titan"I said a few, pick your favorites, the ones that definitely should have mentioned him. I'll do ALL the research and dissect it.

Josephus

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThe point is that Josephus IS cited as evidence that there was a literal Jesus Christ.

Only because he mentions it. Your reasonign is circular...they picked Josephus because he mentioned Jesus, he mentioned Jesus because they edited his texts. Please base your reasoning on something more well foundd.

Are you being deliberately obfuscative? Look ... a major evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is a statement by Josephus about him, specifically:
 
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Now Josephus is understood to have been an historian who wrote with remarkable clarity and objectivity and that passage just ... isn't ... it is uncharacteristic of the writings of the man that historians respect, it is not in the slightest bit objective (even I can see that) and it doesn't ring true.

It DOES NOT prove there was no Christ it simply weakens the case for that person existing by removing (invalidating) a major piece of supporting evidence and as I have repeatedly said mine is an assumptive position ... I take the position there was no Christ because I can, because you & your fellows have no evidence that can be validated. In one sense I genuinely don't care whether your Messiah existed or not but I do what I do from the philosophical position that if I take this point of view it either stops you dead or we have to move on leaving the existence of Jesus Christ as explicitly assumed.

I'd offer to carry on but given that the thread is about who Jesus apparently was and you can't actually prove he even existed I'm entirely happy to ground it here

Kyu

I almost hate to add my opinion because, like Curio, I am not interested in being pulled toward X-tianity by logic or any other means. I have rejected it in its entirety and have moved on. I think of Jesus as an early figure for social justice. He was a radical, and he was very cool, if a quarter of what they say about him is true. I think his words started being distorted immediately and with each re-telling so that little is left of his original message. I think Jesus was a Jew and never meant for his followers to be so obsessed with the immortality of their own worthless souls. I think he meant to revolutionize his world through peace and compassion. I've got no problem with that.  

I marked "other" because there was no option for social revolutionary.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"So the entire world was changed by a fictitious man? History doesn't support your version.

Actually, history doesn't support your version and yes I see that as entirely possible.

Look at it this way ... whether or not he existed, once Jesus was dead, you no longer need the primary to support the tale as it is self-supporting. IOW from, say, 50CE you only have the stories (by which I mean tales, not necessarily fiction), there's no body (because it has supposedly risen to the heavens) and all you really have is word of mouth to be later codified by various individuals. So what we're really arguing about here is that 50 year period.

However, there is the fact that the people who supposedly saw him rise were willing to DIE for their beliefs. If it was indeed a fiction then they would have sacrificed everything for nothing.

QuoteAdd to it this ... was Haile Selassi a good man? Some say that he was the most brutal dictator to his people and upon his death left 11 billion dollars in a Swiss account yet he is revered by millions of Rastafari as their god emperor on Earth. Ghandi is revered/remembered as a good man and maybe he was but I am willing to bet that he wasn't as good as current day claims of him say he was. Mother Teresa is held up (was held up within her lifetime) as an icon of virtue and ran one Bombay's most well funded Catholic institutions for the poor & needy yet she is believed to have re-used hypodermics, left patients screaming in pain because she believe pain brought you closer to "God" and funnelled most of the funds she got (intended by the donors to support her clinic) back to the coffers of Rome. What was she doing? Paving her way to Heaven?

1. Those who were closest to Haile Selassie were not willing to die for the Rastafarians belief that he was God on earth. There is a strict deviation in the accounts. The early early church was willing to die for Jesus when they were the ones who claimed to have seen him rise from the dead.
2. Ghandi and Mother Teresa have not been deified.
3. I don't defend people's wrong views on Christianity.

QuoteWhat I am trying to get across to you is that people are not necessarily what they appear to be even when they are alive and the person vs the publicly perceived persona (particularly a long time after they lived and died or rose into the clouds) are two distinct things which may or may not closely align but more to the point that the principal of a given tale is not needed after a time and may not be needed at all if something was there in its place.  

Please provide evidence for a sect that believed their leader to be a messiah and were willing to die for that cause that has gone on to live and survive with even nonbelievers respecting the achievements of the "messiah."

QuoteYour Jesus Christ may have existed but equally he may not have because they never had long distance communications beyond the spoken and written word (no camera, no video, no radio, no TV) so all the information people got would have been through other and not through a medium you could at least partially trust. IOW many, many Christians in that time (probably the vast majority) would never even have seen their Christ if he existed and given the lack of hard evidence and eyewitness accounts for him it is not a huge leap to assume he never existed at all.

It's that simple and I take the basic position that I want evidence before I accept he existed ... I will not assume he did. Why? Because I can.

The problem is that the Gospel tradition is so counter culture that it doesn't make sense unless it is a first hand account and not a fabrication. For instance, women played a vital role in testifying about the Lord's return. But women at the time were not even trusted as witnesses in the courts. If they had wanted to make a story around this man or if they were trying to prop up their beliefs they would have excised this portion of the text in order to make their religion more plausible.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Logic isn't whatever we want to be. There are real forms of logic and I hope to pull you towards Christianity with true logic and rationality.

Well you haven't succeeded so far so good luck with that particular piece of futility.

Again, I'm not giving up on you that easily.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteStill confused so I'll ask it straight, is the tomb currently claimed by some to be the tomb of Jesus Christ or is it just a tomb that might be the tomb of Jesus Christ?

I don't know, it doesn't matter much. If people think it is they will start worshiping the tomb which is detrimental to faith.

Of course it matters though I concede not much to this discussion if you're not claiming it (the modern discovery) is his tomb.

I'm not.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThe codex account? Apparently it is, at 1500 years old (IIRC), the oldest bible known and therefore presumed to be closer to the original version than any other. No (although there are many scholars who believe that this is how much of the bible was written), do you have evidence that it wasn't? You see the thing is you cannot use the contents of a single book (yeah I know it was many books but let's set that aside for now) with a specific agenda (to promote the religion of Christianity) as validatable evidence for anything in the real world. That is why the bible is considered an historical source rather than actual history by most historians. Do you realise how difficult it would be to transcribe the bible? Considerably more than 600 printed pages (today) x what? 2000 words per page? And each one transcribed individually?

That is actually incorrect, they would write it themselves, yes but it would be reviewed thoroughly.

And, given the evidence historians have of such transcription errors and personal interpretations (including many other historical works not necessarily biblical) along with a through knowledge of how people tend to do such things, you know that how?

But the personal interpretations represent a clear distinction from the volumes that are practically identical. You are talking about transcription errors of small spelling mistakes not edited texts.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteSure, why not? How long ago was Wako? Look how many died there? And this idea of the poor Christians dying for their beliefs is a bit overplayed by your lot isn't it?

I think you are completely disconnected from the world of Christian sacrifice. You need an eye opener to see what is really going on out there. It isn't overplayed at all, if anything it is underplayed.
What character did the Waco people make up and die defending? I think you are making some stuff up.

And I think you are completely over-inflating the claim of Christian sacrifice.

The Wako people, led by David Koresh, died defending their beliefs that that the second coming of Christ was about to occur but they key point is that they believed so utterly in their leader. Arguably it isn't a good example because of the claims and counter-claims over who was to blame for the deaths of so many.

1. It's Waco (with a C).
2. There are many uncertainties about what transpired there...not that I'm defending the actions of those in the house.
3. I don't defend Christians with irrational outworks of Christianity but Christianity itself. How is that not getting across to you?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI think you have to demonstrate that the Christians were as persecuted as you claim, I'm certainly not going to accept it on the basis that you believe it or that someone else with a pro-Christian agenda says so. And again Wako.

You are going to have to give me more background for "Wako."

Scrap Wako (I accept it was a poor example, at least for now) ... what about the other evidence you need to prove your persecution claim?

I'll reference Augustine and the fact that Christianity was one of the few religions that many Roman emperors and citizens did not view as a mere social activity. They saw it as being detrimental to the empire as a whole.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteIf you say you burped then fine you burped, I don't care. If, however, you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth then I might choose to dispute it.

What if you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth and 20 people adamantly agree even if they have nothing to gain from the story.

There're 2 billion Christians worldwide who believe they have the right saviour, there's another 2 billion Muslims, who knows how many Jews and other religions who all think they have the right saviour or other answer ... what do you think I am going to say to that?

As I said earlier, I couldn't care less whether you burped elephants, I would care a lot more if you said those elephants would lead us to spiritual paradise meaning Earthly life was irrelevant and defined a moral code by which should now live (though in truth I'd just piss myself laughing)!

I think that it is pretty easy to demonstrate how those religions are pointless or false.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAnd as I said the Romans were meticulous record keepers, they had census's in every country and guard house records have been shown to be things of great accuracy ... I hardly think something as notable as rebels would be ignored. It would have been tracked and, when appropriate, viciously put down.

Okay, can you point me to the section of the Roman records where they talk about various small rebellions?

Don't be foolish, I can no more do that than I can give you the specific evidence for the big bang, but my understanding is that the historians have such evidence. However, from the "Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems (http://aspe.hhs.gov/DATACNCL/1973privacy/tocprefacemembers.htm)" July, 1973 it says, "Systematic record keeping in the ancient world reached a high point during the Roman Empire and then degenerated with the decline of strong central government." So no doubt you'll realise that what I am saying in general terms at least (I have few doubts you'll object to specifics) is correct about the Romans ... they were meticulous record keepers.

They were meticulous about keeping records but not about everything, and that is why I was asking where they talk about the various religious groups that were arising.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo but it validates that the idea of resurrection was not an uncommon one at the time.

But not resurrection fiction that you get tortured and punished for.

And I repeat that you have to justify that claim first ... I am not accepting it from you without good reason.

You never addressed the data I provided for why Luke was written prior to A.D. 68 (at the latest) and if that is true then you have all of the apostles who were being killed right and left for their beliefs.  

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"I said a few, pick your favorites, the ones that definitely should have mentioned him. I'll do ALL the research and dissect it.

Josephus

From Wikipedia:

"He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus."

I'm making special note of James the brother of Jesus...a pretty clear depiction of a character who lived at the time.

On the other hand, while this argument asserts that Josephus could not have written the Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, that the version of the Antiquities known to Origen must have written something about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ."

Which is what I argued...not that the work in its entirety was true but that Josephus did mention Jesus.

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteThe point is that Josephus IS cited as evidence that there was a literal Jesus Christ.

Only because he mentions it. Your reasonign is circular...they picked Josephus because he mentioned Jesus, he mentioned Jesus because they edited his texts. Please base your reasoning on something more well foundd.

Are you being deliberately obfuscative? Look ... a major evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is a statement by Josephus about him, specifically:
 
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Now Josephus is understood to have been an historian who wrote with remarkable clarity and objectivity and that passage just ... isn't ... it is uncharacteristic of the writings of the man that historians respect, it is not in the slightest bit objective (even I can see that) and it doesn't ring true.

It DOES NOT prove there was no Christ it simply weakens the case for that person existing by removing (invalidating) a major piece of supporting evidence and as I have repeatedly said mine is an assumptive position ... I take the position there was no Christ because I can, because you & your fellows have no evidence that can be validated. In one sense I genuinely don't care whether your Messiah existed or not but I do what I do from the philosophical position that if I take this point of view it either stops you dead or we have to move on leaving the existence of Jesus Christ as explicitly assumed.

Wow, first of all your position at the end isn't one of trying to understand history but of stopping a philosophy. If you were truly rational you would not take a stance for the purpose of arguing against something but you would take a stance because you believed it to be true...this makes me question your intentions. Secondly, you did not answer my point about your circular reasoning. Why did he mention Jesus at all?

Quote from: "Titan"However, there is the fact that the people who supposedly saw him rise were willing to DIE for their beliefs. If it was indeed a fiction then they would have sacrificed everything for nothing.

I have heard this argument time and time again, ad nauseum. It's a simple fact that religious fanatics will die for their belief. The type of people who die for religious causes have never needed a bird's eye view of something as fantastic as a resurrection to feel adequately secure in their belief to go ahead and make themselves martyrs.

Generations of Christians (and fanatics of other religions) have been more than willing to die after accepting the hand-me-down testimony of another human being. Why should the Biblical characters known as the apostles or disciples be any different? I would be willing to accept that the disciples were at least loosely based on historical figures. But whether they were willing to die because they actually witnessed the resurrection is extremely dubious, especially in light of the willingness of other Christians who hadn't witnessed the resurrection to shed their blood.

What if the stories of the disciple's martyrdom are myths designed by other martyrs in order to encourage others to die for their faith? I'm not claiming that Jesus or his disciples are liars or a lunatics, but the authors who created their characters may very well have been.

Quote from: "Titan"The problem is that the Gospel tradition is so counter culture that it doesn't make sense unless it is a first hand account and not a fabrication.

The Gospel tradition has never been counter culture, at least in the US. Plus, when did 'culture's' take on something improve its historical reliability? It seems like you're employing a truth by popularity argument, which is invariably misleading.  

Quote from: "Titan"I think that it is pretty easy to demonstrate how those religions are pointless or false.

Not to the people who believe them they aren't. They have just as much of a case for belief as you do. At some point you have to accept whether you can believe in a god-man rising from the dead or a god-woman with six arms. You can pull out any Roman or Jewish historian you would like - none supports the modern existence of sin or angels or demons or god-men who die and are subsequently resurrected. There is no historical evidence or otherwise for the impossible.

I vote other, because the information that we have (including) the bible does not prove or disprove the existence of Jesus

Actually it can disprove the existence of Jesus as God or the Son of God

So Jesus if he existed maybe he was a man, teacher, prophet, a good man, a liar, etc., but not God or the his Son (for sure)

I put 'good teacher' too as I think he must have existed and must have passed on something. However, the Christ of the Gospels and of Paul I think is almost a new character, though based on an historical one probably.

Quote from: "wheels5894"I put 'good teacher' too as I think he must have existed and must have passed on something. However, the Christ of the Gospels and of Paul I think is almost a new character, though based on an historical one probably.

Why you said "must"? do you think that any character mentioned in a famous book existed!

What about Zeus for example? did he existed as well

The Bible has many errors and illegalities, which make it the product of imperfect people and never from God  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "wheels5894"I put 'good teacher' too as I think he must have existed and must have passed on something. However, the Christ of the Gospels and of Paul I think is almost a new character, though based on an historical one probably.

Why you said "must"? do you think that any character mentioned in a famous book existed!

What about Zeus for example? did he existed as well

The Bible has many errors and illegalities, which make it the product of imperfect people and never from God  

Well, I say 'must' because there is some evidence that a Jewish Christian group was in Jerusalem, led by James, and Acts details their argument about gentiles. Now I know that we can't necessarily take the bible as 'gospel' but I do think this [assage in Acts 15 does give credence to the existence of the group.

Now if we grant the existence of the group in Jerusalem, then It seems unlikely that they would be including a person in their worship who was said to have died in their lifetime if he had not existed and actually died.

Quote from: "wheels5894"Well, I say 'must' because there is some evidence that a Jewish Christian group was in Jerusalem, led by James, and Acts details their argument about gentiles. Now I know that we can't necessarily take the bible as 'gospel' but I do think this [assage in Acts 15 does give credence to the existence of the group.

Now if we grant the existence of the group in Jerusalem, then It seems unlikely that they would be including a person in their worship who was said to have died in their lifetime if he had not existed and actually died.

We can say that Jesus probably existed but not for sure

We can not prove who actually wrote the Bible and was he honest in doing that or not, but we can prove that he did not put the whole truth in it  

Quote from: "Messenger"We can say that Jesus probably existed but not for sure

We can also say that Jesus propably did not exist, but not for sure.

QuoteWe can not prove who actually wrote the Bible and was he honest in doing that or not

We can prove that more than one person contributed, and that it has been changed repeatedly over the centuries. So honesty is quite irrelevant.

QuoteWe can prove that he did not put the whole truth in it  :hide:

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"Actually, history doesn't support your version and yes I see that as entirely possible.

Look at it this way ... whether or not he existed, once Jesus was dead, you no longer need the primary to support the tale as it is self-supporting. IOW from, say, 50CE you only have the stories (by which I mean tales, not necessarily fiction), there's no body (because it has supposedly risen to the heavens) and all you really have is word of mouth to be later codified by various individuals. So what we're really arguing about here is that 50 year period.

However, there is the fact that the people who supposedly saw him rise were willing to DIE for their beliefs. If it was indeed a fiction then they would have sacrificed everything for nothing.

It is NOT a fact, it is as yet an unsubstantiated claim ... you want it to be more then support it.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"Add to it this ... was Haile Selassi a good man? Some say that he was the most brutal dictator to his people and upon his death left 11 billion dollars in a Swiss account yet he is revered by millions of Rastafari as their god emperor on Earth. Ghandi is revered/remembered as a good man and maybe he was but I am willing to bet that he wasn't as good as current day claims of him say he was. Mother Teresa is held up (was held up within her lifetime) as an icon of virtue and ran one Bombay's most well funded Catholic institutions for the poor & needy yet she is believed to have re-used hypodermics, left patients screaming in pain because she believe pain brought you closer to "God" and funnelled most of the funds she got (intended by the donors to support her clinic) back to the coffers of Rome. What was she doing? Paving her way to Heaven?

1. Those who were closest to Haile Selassie were not willing to die for the Rastafarians belief that he was God on earth. There is a strict deviation in the accounts. The early early church was willing to die for Jesus when they were the ones who claimed to have seen him rise from the dead.
2. Ghandi and Mother Teresa have not been deified.
3. I don't defend people's wrong views on Christianity.

Again it is NOT fact, Ghandi has rather been escalated to the level of sainthood in a very, very large number of people's eyes (and I wasn't aware there was deification concept in his religion), Mother Teresa was well on the books for it with the Rat Catchers (no idea what her current saintly status is) and you should because it all reflects on your rather naïve & childish belief system.

QuoteWhat I am trying to get across to you is that people are not necessarily what they appear to be even when they are alive and the person vs the publicly perceived persona (particularly a long time after they lived and died or rose into the clouds) are two distinct things which may or may not closely align but more to the point that the principal of a given tale is not needed after a time and may not be needed at all if something was there in its place.  

Please provide evidence for a sect that believed their leader to be a messiah and were willing to die for that cause that has gone on to live and survive with even nonbelievers respecting the achievements of the "messiah."[/quote]

And yet again it is NOT fact that Christians died in any kind of excessive number in Roman times (IOW that they were specifically prejudiced against) and besides I do believe that all Christianity has it's roots as a global religion via the Roman Catholic Church (Emperor Constantine) so even if it were true I'd have said they have MORE than balanced the books.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"Your Jesus Christ may have existed but equally he may not have because they never had long distance communications beyond the spoken and written word (no camera, no video, no radio, no TV) so all the information people got would have been through other and not through a medium you could at least partially trust. IOW many, many Christians in that time (probably the vast majority) would never even have seen their Christ if he existed and given the lack of hard evidence and eyewitness accounts for him it is not a huge leap to assume he never existed at all.

It's that simple and I take the basic position that I want evidence before I accept he existed ... I will not assume he did. Why? Because I can.

The problem is that the Gospel tradition is so counter culture that it doesn't make sense unless it is a first hand account and not a fabrication. For instance, women played a vital role in testifying about the Lord's return. But women at the time were not even trusted as witnesses in the courts. If they had wanted to make a story around this man or if they were trying to prop up their beliefs they would have excised this portion of the text in order to make their religion more plausible.

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you but until you demonstrate evidence for that it's just another happy clapping Christian claim isn't it?

Quote

Quote from: "Titan"Logic isn't whatever we want to be. There are real forms of logic and I hope to pull you towards Christianity with true logic and rationality.

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"Well you haven't succeeded so far so good luck with that particular piece of futility.

Again, I'm not giving up on you that easily.

Go ahead and waste your time if you want but as I said to Zarathustra, "Atheism is not a choice or a philosophy, it arises from things that are so I ingrained (reason. logic, scientific method) that I cannot simply stop being an atheist, I would have to stop thinking the way I do (in essence move from a position or logic & reason to one that not characterised by either)." ... even if you do move me more towards a religious POV why the hell would I choose to adopt such a stupid & oppressive religion as Christianity?

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"Of course it matters though I concede not much to this discussion if you're not claiming it (the modern discovery) is his tomb.

I'm not.

Fair enough (and I do hope this isn't going to go like that atheism philosophy  one).

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"And, given the evidence historians have of such transcription errors and personal interpretations (including many other historical works not necessarily biblical) along with a through knowledge of how people tend to do such things, you know that how?

But the personal interpretations represent a clear distinction from the volumes that are practically identical. You are talking about transcription errors of small spelling mistakes not edited texts.

And I repeat, you know this how?

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"The Wako people, led by David Koresh, died defending their beliefs that that the second coming of Christ was about to occur but they key point is that they believed so utterly in their leader. Arguably it isn't a good example because of the claims and counter-claims over who was to blame for the deaths of so many.

1. It's Waco (with a C).
2. There are many uncertainties about what transpired there...not that I'm defending the actions of those in the house.
3. I don't defend Christians with irrational outworks of Christianity but Christianity itself. How is that not getting across to you?

1. OK
2. Agreed.
3. You should (see above).

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"Scrap Wako (I accept it was a poor example, at least for now) ... what about the other evidence you need to prove your persecution claim?

I'll reference Augustine and the fact that Christianity was one of the few religions that many Roman emperors and citizens did not view as a mere social activity. They saw it as being detrimental to the empire as a whole.

You're quoting as evidence someone who was born 320 plus years after your claimed messiah supposedly died? Are you serious? You're aware that Christianity was the formal Roman religion from several decades before Augustine's birth?

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"What if you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth and 20 people adamantly agree even if they have nothing to gain from the story.

There're 2 billion Christians worldwide who believe they have the right saviour, there's another 2 billion Muslims, who knows how many Jews and other religions who all think they have the right saviour or other answer ... what do you think I am going to say to that?

Oh I don't know ... maybe that there's bugger all evidence that ANY OF You have the right idea? Just a thought.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"As I said earlier, I couldn't care less whether you burped elephants, I would care a lot more if you said those elephants would lead us to spiritual paradise meaning Earthly life was irrelevant and defined a moral code by which should now live (though in truth I'd just piss myself laughing)!

I think that it is pretty easy to demonstrate how those religions are pointless or false.

Humour me ... tell me exactly how you would do that.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"Don't be foolish, I can no more do that than I can give you the specific evidence for the big bang, but my understanding is that the historians have such evidence. However, from the "Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems (http://aspe.hhs.gov/DATACNCL/1973privacy/tocprefacemembers.htm)" July, 1973 it says, "Systematic record keeping in the ancient world reached a high point during the Roman Empire and then degenerated with the decline of strong central government." So no doubt you'll realise that what I am saying in general terms at least (I have few doubts you'll object to specifics) is correct about the Romans ... they were meticulous record keepers.

They were meticulous about keeping records but not about everything, and that is why I was asking where they talk about the various religious groups that were arising.

And that, I'm afraid, is just special pleading on your part. If you cannot demonstrate why the Romans, meticulous record keepers that they were, do not validate your given religion of choice's history then at least have the good grace to admit you take your religion's claimed historicity on faith rather than fact.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"And I repeat that you have to justify that claim first ... I am not accepting it from you without good reason.

You never addressed the data I provided for why Luke was written prior to A.D. 68 (at the latest) and if that is true then you have all of the apostles who were being killed right and left for their beliefs.

OK ... where was that again?

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"Josephus

From Wikipedia:

"He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus."

I'm making special note of James the brother of Jesus...a pretty clear depiction of a character who lived at the time.

On the other hand, while this argument asserts that Josephus could not have written the Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, that the version of the Antiquities known to Origen must have written something about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ."

Which is what I argued...not that the work in its entirety was true but that Josephus did mention Jesus.

OK ... the passage concerning James is as follows:

"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought it before the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."

In favour of it being genuine is the fact that it doesn't go overboard as the other strongly suspected interpolation did, that Origen mentions this passage (which allows over a century for the passage to have been interpolated) and the claim that the words reflect Jewish rather than Christian usage are inconclusive. Another objection to this passage is that the Greek does not contain the concept of "so-called" so the actual phrase would be "Him called Christ" which then raises the interpolation spectre again.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Kyuukesuki"It DOES NOT prove there was no Christ it simply weakens the case for that person existing by removing (invalidating) a major piece of supporting evidence and as I have repeatedly said mine is an assumptive position ... I take the position there was no Christ because I can, because you & your fellows have no evidence that can be validated. In one sense I genuinely don't care whether your Messiah existed or not but I do what I do from the philosophical position that if I take this point of view it either stops you dead or we have to move on leaving the existence of Jesus Christ as explicitly assumed.

Wow, first of all your position at the end isn't one of trying to understand history but of stopping a philosophy. If you were truly rational you would not take a stance for the purpose of arguing against something but you would take a stance because you believed it to be true...this makes me question your intentions. Secondly, you did not answer my point about your circular reasoning. Why did he mention Jesus at all?

Josephus? There is no surety that he (himself) did. And am I biased? Yes ... primarily I'm biased against the use of assumption as evidence for something that cannot be factually demonstrated as having occurred. You OTOH are biased towards all things Christian and at least I can say that my bias leaves us where we should be i.e. that something cannot be assume to be unless that something has supporting evidence.

Kyu

Quote from: "Zarathustra"We can also say that Jesus propably did not exist, but not for sure.

Yes

QuoteWe can also prove that the Bible holds no valid claim, which implies that there is no truth in it at all.

There is a difference here, We can not be sure if it has some truth in it or not
But any way, The Bible should be discard as it can not be from God
A book from God must have no single Error or contradiction
God must provide a proof for his existence and for his book authenticity

If not, we should not accept blind beliefs

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"We can also prove that the Bible holds no valid claim, which implies that there is no truth in it at all.

There is a difference here, We can not be sure if it has some truth in it or not

Agreed! I wanted to provoke you since what you wrote was that the bible, didn't hold the whole truth. What you wrote now is a lot more correct. What I ment to say was, that so far most of it has been proven wrong.

QuoteBut any way, The Bible should be discard as it can not be from God
A book from God must have no single Error or contradiction

Agreed

QuoteGod must provide a proof for his existence and for his book authenticity

If not, we should not accept blind beliefs

And the current case is: He hasn't! So we should not accept the christian god.

Glad we are in agreement. Let's take on the next deity  

Quote from: "Titan"Improbable which verse on slavery are you referencing. Because I am pretty sure you are taking it out of context.

I admit that it is nothing specific that *I* know of. Sam Harris said it. But I am inclined to believe him. Especially considering the times.
     Also according to SAB there are many many bad things about Jesus in fact and even if half or most of them were incorrect. Surely they can't all be incorrect: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
      There is the cruelty and violence section. Just search for the Jesus. I doubt they're all incorrect. You can go ahead and falsify them all if you want if you can actually show that they're not actually what the bible says and/or means.
      Sam Harris also said, and I paraphrase: 'Jesus actually said those who don't follow me shall be slain before me'.
     Also the key thing for me in SAB about Jesus, and I believe Harris might have said this also is that: Jesus did not disprove of the OT. He came to promote it not to change it.

Quote from: "Improbable"Jesus did not disprove of the OT. He came to promote it not to change it.

This is very true. Jesus tought from the Old Testament. Which is why folks like Tolstoy are wrong in thinking only the New Testament or teachings of Christ matters. Sorry Titan, it's all or nothing.