Jesus is not the Messiah

[jacobrock23]

Most of us believe there was a man named Jesus who lived around that time. None of us believe he was the foretold Messiah. Those Jews that did accept and believe in Jesus were the first Christians. Those Jews who did not remained Jewish.

[Gawen]

Most of us believe there was a man named Jesus who lived around that time. None of us believe he was the foretold Messiah. Those Jews that did accept and believe in Jesus were the first Christians. Those Jews who did not remained Jewish.

Most interesting indeed. The Jews were and still are looking for the Messiah. Most Christians say he was foretold, came and went. What Jesus do you believe in?

[Martin TK]

I believe there were TWO Jesus' figures.  One was a historic Jesus, a real Jewish teacher, who lived and taught, and was himself not a Christian but a practicing Jew.  Then, there is the "other" Jesus, the Mythical Figure, the Jesus who performed miracles, who was born of a virgin, and who rose from the dead.  This Jesus is a mythical construct by early Christians, his deeds, birth, and death/resurection were all embellished to give him "street creds" for the times.  Most early Christians didn't think that 2000 years later there would even be a world, much less a religion called Christianity.  Most early Christians were convinced that Jesus would return to earth in their lifetime, and guess what, that hasn't changed in 2,000 years.  Christians, today, are convinced that Jesus will come again in their lifetime.

Most of the Jesus Myth was borrowed from early Pagan Religions.  Early Christians were little more than a group of sects or cults, loosely woven together, at best, by the central belief in a Jesus, but other than that had little in common.  It wasn't until the Nicean Council in the fourth century, that the Catholic Church was formed and a central view of Christianity was formed.  And how was it formed?  By the same way early Christians formed their cults, but taking bits and peices from each sect or cult, and weaving a doctrine of Christianity that could be followed by all.  Each sect or cult had their own bible or writings, and it was decided by the council which would be included in the Christian bible and which books or writings would be discarded as too extreme.  The fact that Paul wrote to so many of the early churches/sects/cults, became a central part of the development of Christianity.  I believe that Paul actually had more to do with the development of Christianity that Jesus did.

Just some thoughts.

[freeservant]

Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERIFIED!  For Pete's sake, it's 2010, shouldn't people be done arguing over this nonsense by now?

Do you actually think millions of people would believe if there was not credible evidence and verification for Jesus Christ?

Have you explored the links I have posted?

 "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
     --HERBERT SPENCER

Do you have contempt of the clear and verified evidence?

The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.. But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

I seem to see no way to refute this.  Yet those invested in their cognitive dissonance can just ignore it.

No one wants to tear others beliefs down.  While you preach your ancient superstitions, we're laughing. Laughing because we only believe in REALITY, and what the bible says is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far away from that!  You talk about Occam's Razor, you don't think you're breaking that rule when you assume God exists, or assume that the Bible is credible, or assume that Jesus was the messiah?  This is a shining example of the Confirmation Bias.  You have drawn the conclusion, BEFORE you look for evidence to support it.

Of course every clue and bit of evidence can be defeated and refuted, because the evidence is entirely self confirming.

Oh?  And do you mean self confirming like if you witness something and need to pass it on and give it out so that it may be recorded and passed on?


 

It's awful logic.

So if you then witness something significant then it should automatically be discounted because of your own investment in what you witnessed?

 

How much evidence does it take before people realize the bible does not represent truth?

Apparently only cognitive dissonance is all that is needed to declare something by tautology alone.

The Earth is millions of years old.
Evolution is a fact.
There was no Garden of Eden.
There was no Global Flood.
There was no migration across the Red Sea.
There was no Sodom and Gomorrah.
There was no walking on water.
There was no wine from water.
There is no hell.
and most importantly THERE IS NO INVISIBLE MEGALOMANIAC IN THE SKY!

Sweet tautology to live your life by as long as you keep your contempt prior to investigation.

If anyone or anything else in the world made claims so outrageous, with no external evidence, No one would take it seriously.  Talk about Occam's Razor, no story in the bible doesn't violate Occam's Razor.  I don't believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose.  In terms of your stamp analogy, Atheists are non-Stamp collectors, who realized people are collecting IMAGINARY stamps.  We just want to show people that there's actually nothing in their stamp book, so they stop wasting their lives on imaginary stamps, and insisting on holding back everyone else in the process.

I see... So like this claim:

Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERRIFIED!  

Precisely. I took the long way to explain that, but believers can't just be told what you just said in a couple of sentences. Devout people, like Freeservant, would rather take us to Jesus than listen to us. They are afraid to think critically because their religion is based on fear. It makes me so glad that I never had to go through the deconversion process.

So with this joyful confirmation I can take it that you have evidence for atheism as no negative-atheist would make such a powerful claim.

Present your evidence.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0

And of course there is no evidence on my side as has been repeated over and over as a tautological supreme truth!

Oh.. wait... I am too much of a cognitively dissonant simpleton, who is deluded so that any evidence you have is going to be a secret atheist thing where they say they have no burden as atheism is a negative-atheism...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch%C3%A9

Oh.. and don't forget I am too afraid for the truth.

I should have known when I joined we would be trolled, I just want to know why you felt the urge to come here.

(I know I'm being mean, but that's what people do when they're pissed off.  I stand by everything I say, but apologize in advance for being offensive...)

[/quote]

Trolled?  I guess this must mean that anybody that wants to share and defend their worldview is a troll.  I get that you want an atheist echo chamber that does not challenge anybody to go beyond their contempt prior to investigation.

any link I produce of the significant work gone into the trustworthiness of the bible will be lost on the cognitively dissonant who have contempt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2inxJZJvs4

There is a war of worldviews going on but don't watch the entire video as you need not test your assumptions.

Again I did ask if there is any of the wealth of information out there on the internet that would give you pause to consider the thousands of years of scholarship that has gone on to defend and provide clues and evidence that will lead you to the truth.  Or must everything be torn down and nothing built up by non-stamp collectors hoping, wishing, finding a bubble or echo chamber that will keep then sure in their no Santa means there is no God myth.

[Tank]

Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERIFIED!  For Pete's sake, it's 2010, shouldn't people be done arguing over this nonsense by now?

Do you actually think millions of people would believe if there was not credible evidence and verification for Jesus Christ?

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." - Abraham Lincoln

Your argument from popularity will, at some point in the future, have to change to the fact that most people will believe Mohamed was the last true prophet of Allah. When will you be converting to Islam?

People are generally not sceptical of their world view because they have no desire or requirement to be. They follow the norms of the culture they exist in simply because it's the easiest thing to do. If you are told (insert ideology of choice) is true by your parents and family and all the people around you will believe it as you will have no reason not to. But when what you have been told conflicts with reality you have to do one of the following a) ignore the dichotomy, b) rubbish the dichotomy, c) accept reality or d) pretend you don't believe the dichotomy. The logical thing to do is c) accept reality. But what if accepting reality will result in your ostracism from your family, friends and culture followed by endless ridicule? People would normally choose d). And thus the continuation of (insert ideology of choice) is confirmed.

If you don't think this works it has been shown to. In an experiment 4 chimps were put in a cage with a ladder with a banana on top. When the first adventurous chimp climbed the ladder all 4 chimps were hosed with cold water, which they do not like. A different chimp had a go and the same happened etc etc. Eventually the chimps stopped trying to get the banana. One chimp was swapped out with one that had no idea what would happen if they climbed the ladder, so he tried. The remaining three chimps beat the crap out of him, it took a few goes but the banana remained intact and uneaten. They swapped out another of the original chimps. The new chimp tried to get the banana and the other three, including the one who had never been soaked, stopped them. They then swapped out another original and the same process occurred. They then swapped out the final original chimp and the same thing happened, the three chimps who had never been soaked stopped the new one from climbing the ladder to get the banana. So you end up with 4 chimps who won't climb the ladder to get the banana yet none of them really knows why, they had formed a dogma 'don't get the banana!'

Religions are no different, they are a behaviourists dream. You are telling people Christianity is right, but you really don't know why. Not a nice thought is it? Accept reality.

[freeservant]

Religions are no different, they are a behaviorists dream. You are telling people Christianity is right, but you really don't know why. Not a nice thought is it? Accept reality.

Then you have a burden to prove it's a behaviorists dream.  Some dream of the utopia that will happen if all religion is killed.  Ask that fine Jewish person Karl Marx about behavior and the opiate of the masses.  Your chimpanzee straw man would work good if we all had the intelligence of the chimp.  But it also works in my favor as believers in Jesus where often hunted, tortured, and killed in effort to hose that upstart religion down.  Do you think Nero fed enough Christians to the lions that they should not have gone for that banana?  Remember that the first century was when it was most inconvenient to be a Christian so those Christians kept going for the banana even if it killed them.  You would have to say that they must of had good evidence to be that convicted.

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/

I had my IQ tested recently and it was quite healthy.  I do have the capacity to learn and study yet also know how to be a skeptic. I am convinced there is sufficient evidence.  And remember that evidence does not need to be extraordinary as it only need be sufficient.

http://www.bethinking.org/

Sufficient enough to know that ad-populum is not always a fallacy if my appeal was that people do in fact believe.  But then it goes beyond belief as Christians do feel the interaction and relationship with the Creator.  A personal revelation that you can not know if you keep your heart hardened and have contempt prior to investigation.

[Gawen]

Who cares?!? One bit of ancient scripture fails to support another bit of ancient scripture.  That's what the Bible IS!  Writing from thousands of years ago, that some tribal simpletons came up with, THAT CANNOT BE VERRIFIED!  

Precisely. I took the long way to explain that, but believers can't just be told what you just said in a couple of sentences. Devout people, like Freeservant, would rather take us to Jesus than listen to us. They are afraid to think critically because their religion is based on fear. It makes me so glad that I never had to go through the deconversion process.

So with this joyful confirmation I can take it that you have evidence for atheism as no negative-atheist would make such a powerful claim.

The original claim is "Jesus was not the Messiah". You have yet to show that he was. I have shown you how he was not and you have yet to refute my statements. All you come up with is a lot of vitriolic off topic apologetics.

I had my IQ tested recently and it was quite healthy. I do have the capacity to learn and study yet also know how to be a skeptic.

Then you should be able to refute my statements.

I am convinced there is sufficient evidence. And remember that evidence does not need to be extraordinary as it only need be sufficient.

I thought you just said your IQ was healthy?
Refute my claims...if you will.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Freeservant:

Simply being able to throw around terms like "cognitive dissonance" roughly in context does not a thinker make.

Also, since you're very keen against tautologies, would you kindly quit citing the Bible as evidence for your view that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

Sufficient enough to know that ad-populum is not always a fallacy if my appeal was that people do in fact believe. But then it goes beyond belief as Christians do feel the interaction and relationship with the Creator. A personal revelation that you can not know if you keep your heart hardened and have contempt prior to investigation.

If it cannot be reproduced, it is useless as evidence.  There is a "god module" in the brain that provides a naturalistic explanation for your feelings of sublimnity and presence.  However, given your obvious emotional investment in belief, I doubt you will consider this as a factor.

[Gawen]

Sufficient enough to know that ad-populum is not always a fallacy if my appeal was that people do in fact believe.

Wow...in other words...

Just because 1 billion people believe in something with no evidence doesn't make it true....unless I also believe it.

[freeservant]

So with this joyful confirmation I can take it that you have evidence for atheism as no negative-atheist would make such a powerful claim.

The original claim is "Jesus was not the Messiah". You have yet to show that he was. I have shown you how he was not and you have yet to refute my statements. All you come up with is a lot of vitriolic off topic apologetics.

It is not off topic to ground your presuppositions that are required if your view that Jesus is not the Messiah is to be a positive truth claim on your part.  I have refuted you time and again with worthy links to scholarly evidence that early Christians knew Jesus was God because they directly witnessed this and it was consistent with the earliest known biblical fragments that back this up.  Biblical fragments that are clearly during the time when living witnesses existed.  I note you wont address this issue...

But as I said before and will say again:  You are not refutable as you refuse the clear evidence.  No one can beat stubborn intractability.

I had my IQ tested recently and it was quite healthy. I do have the capacity to learn and study yet also know how to be a skeptic.

Then you should be able to refute my statements.

But I have yet I can't falsify stubborn intractability.

I am convinced there is sufficient evidence. And remember that evidence does not need to be extraordinary as it only need be sufficient.

I thought you just said your IQ was healthy?
Refute my claims...if you will.[/quote]

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm

Now I had to apply these same two questions to my own subjective experience:

1. What is the objective reality or basis for my subjective experience-a changed life?

Answer: the person of Christ and His resurrection.

2. How many others have had this same subjective experience from being related to the objective reality, Jesus Christ?

The evidence is overwhelming. Truly millions of people, from all backgrounds, nationalities and professions, have seen their lives elevated to new levels of peace and joy by turning their lives over to Christ. Indeed, the professor confirmed this when he said, "I have met scores of people around the world who have been transformed by Christ."

I have an objective reality I have personally observed that backs up the above.  Yet I bet you will deny this as you are not truly wanting to find any evidence that confirms my epistemological experience.

Freeservant:

Simply being able to throw around terms like "cognitive dissonance" roughly in context does not a thinker make.

Also, since you're very keen against tautologies, would you kindly quit citing the Bible as evidence for your view that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

Cognitive Dissonance is an interesting term that requires a truth position in order to work.  IE: Atheism is the positive claim that God does not exist thus those who deny the evidence are thus cognitively dissonant.  Do you see how it works that way?

http://www.answers.com/topic/cognitive-dissonance

So if there is information that confirms that God does not exist then I may be cognitively dissonant but as long as I am debating weak-atheists/negative-atheists or agnostic atheists then this term can go only one direction.  That direction is of the one making a positive claim with evidence or clues that point to that persons positive claim.  ....Oh but I guess it does work both ways if both are making positive assertions and positive metaphysical claims.

a video that illustrates the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0

also here is information that refutes gawen's claims about Paul: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm

[Thumpalumpacus]

Cognitive Dissonance is an interesting term that requires a truth position in order to work.  IE: Atheism is the positive claim that God does not exist thus those who deny the evidence are thus cognitively dissonant.  Do you see how it works that way?

No, because you're ignoring an entire class of atheists.  

Also, I define myself, and reject your judgement.  You don't know me from a can of paint, so quit pretending you do.  You're fooling no one.

So if there is information that confirms that God does not exist then I may be cognitively dissonant but as long as I am debating weak-atheists/negative-atheists or agnostic atheists then this term can go only one direction.  That direction is of the one making a positive claim with evidence or clues that point to that persons positive claim.  ....Oh but I guess it does work both ways if both are making positive assertions and positive metaphysical claims.

I'm not sure why you're talking about a positive disproof of god to me; I've never put one forth, and I doubt such an eventuality.  Aim this arrow elsewhere.

also here is information that refutes your claims about Paul

I'm not sure why this is directed at me either.  Kindly clarify.

[freeservant]

No, because you're ignoring an entire class of atheists.

Nope unless you wish to claim that atheism is not a rational position and thus can not be defined rationally.

Also, I define myself, and reject your judgement.  You don't know me from a can of paint, so quit pretending you do.  You're fooling no one.

Here you have illustrated my point.  Can you rationally define atheism or rather all of it's subclasses or denominations and other ephemera?

I can: http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html

And you are free to define yourself as you wish but that does not mean you have a rational activator to establish an objective means for why you define yourself by yourself.

So if there is information that confirms that God does not exist then I may be cognitively dissonant but as long as I am debating weak-atheists/negative-atheists or agnostic atheists then this term can go only one direction.  That direction is of the one making a positive claim with evidence or clues that point to that persons positive claim.  ....Oh but I guess it does work both ways if both are making positive assertions and positive metaphysical claims.

I'm not sure why you're talking about a positive disproof of god to me; I've never put one forth, and I doubt such an eventuality.  Aim this arrow elsewhere.

This is very simple and black and white in that if you make a claim of cognitive dissonance on my part, then you are required to be a positive atheist with positive clues and evidence or you must withdraw any such claim.  Like the video said it is implied as necessary to your claim.

also here is information that refutes your claims about Paul

I'm not sure why this is directed at me either.  Kindly clarify.

I have fixed this.    sorry

[Gawen]

Still waiting to for you get back on topic, freeservant.

[freeservant]

Still waiting to for you get back on topic, freeservant.

you have not even come close refuting the wealth of website content I have already given you so unless I play games like you are obviously doing or just keep repeating the same stuff over and over until you finally give an answer I have decided I will no longer reply to you.

You are dishonest and will not address even the points I have made given you seeing that you are under the delusion that you have some how refuted me I declare your dishonesty as your means of victory.

You are by mental gymnastics the winnar!

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, because you're ignoring an entire class of atheists.

Nope unless you wish to claim that atheism is not a rational position and thus can not be defined rationally.

Nonsense.  There are atheists who believe that god(s) are logically impossible.  You also have atheists who do not claim to know the truth-state of any god, but deem the evidence lacking, and, lacking faith, give the idea no credence.

I am in the latter group.  I cannot say god doesn't, or cannot exist.  I can only say that I have no faith and your evidence is, to put it kindly, useless.

Here you have illustrated my point.  Can you rationally define atheism or rather all of it's subclasses or denominations and other ephemera?

I don't care about all the "classes" of atheism, or its "ephemera".  You don't know me, you cannot define me, and to do so is overweening on your part.

And you are free to define yourself as you wish but that does not mean you have a rational activator to establish an objective means for why you define yourself by yourself.

My logic, unlike yours, is internally consistent.  Additionally, it explains the world fine without invoking extra entities.

I'm not sure why you're talking about a positive disproof of god to me; I've never put one forth, and I doubt such an eventuality.  Aim this arrow elsewhere.

This is very simple and black and white in that if you make a claim of cognitive dissonance on my part, then you are required to be a positive atheist with positive clues and evidence or you must withdraw any such claim.  Like the video said it is implied as necessary to your claim.

Please read for comprehension.  I was pointing out your use of "sciency" language, not attributing your accusations to your own character.