How Can We Know That Jesus Lived, Died & Rose Again?
Is it possible to know that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Alex McFarland, President of Southern Evangelical Seminary and regular guest-host on Truthtalk Live, poses the question that is central to Christianity.
His guest is Mike Licona, Apologetics Coordinator at the North American Mission Board.
Mike has engaged in public debate on Jesus’ resurrection with Bart Ehrman (UNC) and Elaine Pagels (Princeton) and many others . He’s the author of “Paul Meets Muhammad” (Baker 2006), and co-author with Gary Habermas of the award winning “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” (Kregel 2004).
Mike has a Ph.D in New Testament Studies from the University of Pretoria. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, The Institute for Biblical Research and the Society of Biblical Literature.
Mike is a frequent speaker on university campuses, churches, and has appeared on dozens of radio and television programs.
Find us on: 
168 Comments on “How Can We Know That Jesus Lived, Died & Rose Again?”
When you read the gospels, it is the very fact that the principals didn’t bother to get their facts straight that makes them come across as so sincere. They read like people remembering things that happened, that they witnessed first hand, but they all had slightly different takes and slightly different points of view…not to mention slightly different orders to common events, and some events that one knew about that the others didn’t. If the gospel writers had been making it up, they would have made sure they all got together and had exactly the same story. And what they all have in common is that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, our intermediary to God, that He was crucified, and that He was resurrected. Not only that, but the news of these events and the “faith” that they gave rise to quickly spread throughout the Roman Empire within a generation of His death. I just don’t see how anyone can doubt it. They might doubt the divinity of it, I suppose, but not that it occurred.
While it may appear to many people that the authors of the gospels couldn’t get their supposed facts straight a closer look reveals that isn’t what went on at all. Scholars agree that Mark is the first gospel and the authors of Matthew and Luke copied large amounts of the text from Mark. None of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses to anything they were nothing more than fiction writers. The dating of the gospels comes from nothing more than wish-thinking. There are no mentions of or witnesses to any of the gospels before Iraneus in 190CE. This is quite an embarrassing fact that Christian apologists don’t want you to know about.
If one compares reports of miracles from the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), one will find that, as one moves from earlier to the later gospels, some of the miracles become more exaggerated. Consider the following passage from Mark the earliest gospel:
Mark 1:32-34 and at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. And when the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils: and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
Matthew 8:16: When evening was coming, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick.
Luke 4:40 Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid hands on every one of them, and healed them.
According to Mark, all were brought to Jesus and many were healed; according to Matthew many were brought and all were healed; and according to Luke all were brought and all were healed. The miracles keep getting better all the time. As A. Robertson observes, “We are witnessing the progressive growth of a legend.” (Archibald Robertson, The Origins of Christianity, New York; International Publishers 1954 p.82) – Atheism-The Case Against God Copyright 1979 by George Smith Published by Prometheus Books pp 215-216
It is interesting to note the following omissions of Mark’s Gospel from the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John such as: And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them (Mark 6:5). These are of several kinds: (1) Complete parables or incidents like the parable in Mark 4:26-29; the healings in 7:32-37; the widow and her alms, 12:41-44. (2) Mark’s references to the strong human emotions of Jesus are invariably left out. Cf. Mark 3:5, Matt 12:9-14; Mark 1:41-43, Matt 8:3-4; Mark 10:14, Matt 19:14. (3) Statements of inability on the part of Jesus, e.g., Mark 1:45; 6:5; 7:24; 14:58 are omitted in Matthew. (4) The asking of questions on the part of Jesus is omitted in Matthew; Mark 5:9,30; 6:38; 8:12,23; 9:12. These omissions are due to the growing feeling that anything, which might be interpreted as disparaging to Jesus, must be toned down or ignored. – The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible Copyright 1971 by Abington Press Nashville, Tennessee p?
“There are no mentions of or witnesses to any of the gospels before Iraneus in 190CE. This is quite an embarrassing fact that Christian apologists don’t want you to know about.” Why would there be? The first century of Christianity as a religion largely consisted of small persecuted groups of people meeting quietly in houses, telling stories about Jesus (because the gospels would not be widely ciruclated yet, there not being any printing presses!) and reading copied versions of fragments of Paul’s letters.
Also, I think it is safe to say that Acts was probably written before Paul’s death, since it isn’t mentioned. Since Luke is written by the same author, Luke must also pre-date Paul’s death. That means it has to be before 65 AD.
“Scholars agree that Mark is the first gospel and the authors of Matthew and Luke copied large amounts of the text from Mark.” Or that they were familiar with Mark, or that they all shared a common source commonly referred to as Q.
“None of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses to anything they were nothing more than fiction writers. The dating of the gospels comes from nothing more than wish-thinking.” Now you are simply engaging in your own wishful thinking. Most scholars do NOT hold this point of view. You are quite happy to refer to scholars when they agree with you, and then just as consistently ditch them when they don’t.
Your final paragraph simply demonstrates that the writers of the gospels were writing for different emphasis. Mark is a short, action packed gospel, a sort of “just the facts”. Since the earliest versions don’t inlude post resurrection appearances, it is conceivable that it was penned soon after the crucifixion, before reports of Jesus’ appearances had been widely reported. Matthew seems to stress the failure of the Jewish high society to “get” that Jesus was divine, the long awaited Messiah. He stresses the credentials of Jesus, trying to convince the Jews that Jesus does fulfill the Old Testament references to the Messiah. Luke is kinder towards the Jews who don’t “get it”, and emphasizes Jesus’s humanity and universal appeal (Luke gives a prominent place to women in his account, for example). Naturally, the writers would emphasize different parts of the story of Jesus to make their respective cases. The gospels are not the equivalent of modern day journalism, they are more like persuasive essays. The writers are using the facts of the life of Jesus to make a case for His divinity, but each has their own sense of what must be emphasized.
Get’em kash, get’em, although you must realize that Bernie does not like anyone attacking his faith. He is a devout atheist and will defend his position all the way to hell.
Bernie, Atheism is a religion. You are proof that it has its own evangelists. If you truly believed God did not exist why bother trying to convince everyone that He doesn’t. If your religion is correct, what difference does it make if I pray to God the Father in Jesus name.
My last comment on defending you position all the way to hell was meant to be serious and not a joke. Something everyone should consider.
kash is right when she states, “You are quite happy to refer to scholars when they agree with you, and then just as consistently ditch them when they don’t.”
Kash : “They might doubt the divinity of it, I suppose, but not that it occurred.” Well Said. Thats where I am.
Might I just say, I think it is entirely plausible that in the vast ammounts of time between when Jesus lived and did whatever it was he actually did and the time when the oral traditions about him were finally written down, some of the stories were lost, altered, or made up. The reason the gospels are different is because their authrs heard different stories and had different emphases. Scribal changes and additions altered them futher. The fact that the gospels sometimes disagree isn’t evidence for their accuracy more than it is evidence for their very human origins.
Chris: Do you not know that all the gospel writers were ”eyewitnesses” of what Jesus said and did.
I don’t think there was such a very long time between when Christ lived and when it was written down. After all, Paul was writing his letters very shortly after Christ’s death and he wasn’t talking about a wildly different savior, despite what some may claim. Paul was writing letters to specific churches with specific issues, developing a coherent theology for a fledgling movement, so it doesn’t bother me that he doesn’t spend a lot of time going over events in Christ’s life because he would assume his audience already knew them. But when it comes to the resurrection, Paul is repetitive and adamant that it occurred. And there are gospels that WERE written later and seem largely “made up”, which is why they were relegated as gnostic. I think it is safe to assume the reason they didn’t get such wide distribution is because the eyewitnesses (or their descendents, depending on when the gnostics were written) KNEW they were false.
Probably none of them were there for all of it, Maz. Definitely not in the trial, for instance.
Or, for instance, Matthew tells of the transfiguration although he states that only Jesus, Peter, James, and John the brother of James were there.
Maz: “Do you not know that all the gospel writers were ”eyewitnesses” of what Jesus said and did.” The best NT scholarship today indicates that none of the gospel accounts were written by eye witnesses. There are numerous reasons for this idea and numerous books and internet articles on it for that matter.
Bernie, Atheism is a religion.
Answer: Here is a complete response to this ridiculous claim:
You hear it regularly from talking heads like Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter (whose latest ‘book’, Godless, is subtitled The Church of Liberalism), and you’re only going to hear it more now that the War on Christmas season is upon us: atheism is a religion just as sure as Christianity is, and all these heathens want to do is foist their religion on the good, god-fearing folk of America.
There’s always an undercurrent of defensiveness and desperation in this claim, as if one’s own faith is invalidated by the existence of a genuinely different approach to life and the universe. In making their convoluted arguments, people who conflate atheism with religion actually weaken the foundations upon which their own belief is built. Atheism simply cannot be a religion unless that term carries essentially no meaning.
Here’s a handy list of qualities shared by almost all religions that atheism lacks:
There Is No God
First things first. Atheists do not believe in a god or gods. This is a tautology, of course, since the term “atheism” itself carries that literal meaning. Some atheists have suggested that the term cedes too much to religious believers and argue for a new coinage that captures what atheists do believe rather than what they don’t. The fact that there is no such suitable term is a strong argument against classifying atheism as a religion, as we shall see. The denial of god alone, however, is not sufficient proof that atheism is not a religion, since many belief systems do not believe in god. Some, such as Buddhism, Taoism and Shinto — even Scientology — are properly classified as religions since they meet many of the other criteria listed below.
There Is No Common Belief
Contrary to what the O’Reillys and Coulters of the world will tell you, atheists are bound by no common ideology or belief. An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. Period. Beyond that, things get a little murky. There are the dreaded secular humanists, there are logical empiricists, there are existentialists, there are skeptics, nihilists – you name it. Not all atheists believe in evolution or put their ‘faith’ in science. This is why no one term could positively describe the entirety of atheism. Atheists as a whole are bound by a common disbelief – and nothing else.
There Are No Laws
Most religions feature a set of laws or regulations, ranging from what not to eat for breakfast to who thou shalt and shalt not kill and or covet. In atheism, this is entirely lacking. This is not to say that atheism is amoral (see below), but to note that there exists no universal atheist code of standards, either vague or specific.
There Is No Church or Ritual
It has become fashionable to claim that the Church of Atheism is the editorial board room of the New York Times or the chambers of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but this is nothing more than sophistry based on the supposition that all atheists are cut from the same (non-ecclesiastical) cloth. In fact, this is far from the case. Atheists are everywhere, in all walks of life (watch out!). The idea of an organized church of atheism in which its rituals are practiced by gatherings of (un)believers is a non sequitur.
There Is No Unified Conception of Spirituality
Unlike atheist religions such as Buddhism, non-religious atheism has no spiritual credo. Some atheists may consider themselves ‘spiritual’, while a great many do not. Some may feel some sort of connection to nature or the universe while others may feel nothing of the sort. In Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud called this the “oceanic feeling”, and saw it as the source of the religious impetus. He claimed to have never experienced this feeling himself. Whether or not atheists have experienced this oceanic feeling, it has never coalesced into anything that could be called a religion.
There Is No Scripture
Christianity has the Bible, Islam the Koran; Judaism has the Torah, Hinduism the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. Atheism has no scripture or sacred text. Darwin’s Origin of the Species, while held in high regard by many atheists, doesn’t count. The very fact that scientists are continually building on and even refuting Darwin’s claims is proof that his version of the truth is not considered to be inerrant or divinely inspired.
There Is No Priesthood
In addition to having no rituals, atheism has no ritualistic leaders. Unlike virtually every religion known to man, atheism has no anointed hierarchy to lead its ‘adherents’ closer to the truth. This is not to say that there aren’t prominent atheists. There are. But, absent the sacred texts and rituals of religion — not to mention a proper congregation — they do not constitute a priesthood or clergy.
There Is No Tradition
All religions have a tradition and a history. Atheism has many, but no single one that sustains a movement over centuries, as you find in every major world religion.
There Is No Founder
Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, L. Ron Hubbard – most major religions have a founding figure or prophet. Atheism has no such figure. There are many old-timers like Galileo, for example, who rise to prominence, but none of these atheists ‘founded’ atheism and none commands the reverence accorded to the founders and patriarchs of the world religions.
There Are No Holidays
Most religions have holy days (still, despite the all-out assault on Christmas). Atheism has no holidays, and no framework to decide when such holidays would be or what they might commemorate. Festivus doesn’t count.
There Is No Identifying Clothing
Yarmulkes, robes, veils, turbans, sacred underwear and other holy vestments hold great importance for the majority of religions. Atheism has no dress code, although comfortable shoes are recommended.
There Is No Concept of the Afterlife
Most religions attempt to answer the question of what happens to us when we die. Where do we go to be warmed in the loving embrace of the lord? Where do they go to be horrifically tortured? There’s heaven and hell, of course, and reincarnation, nirvana and moksha. Atheists have no concept of the afterlife, except that, most commonly, there isn’t one.
There Is No Creation Myth
Now wait just a minute! How is the Big Bang any less of a myth than Genesis? Keeping in mind that not all atheists believe in the Big Bang theory, it’s different because it’s a scientific postulate that can be tested and the effects of which can be empirically demonstrated. If in the end this theory does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, it will be chucked on the trash heap alongside the bodily humors and the Atkins Diet.
******
So, atheism shares none of the characteristics common to all belief systems commonly known as religions. Even widely-despised and derided belief systems like Satanism, Wicca, paganism and Presbyterianism are religions by these standards. Atheism is not. Arguing that it is means that faith in god, ritual, community, tradition, spirituality and theology are irrelevant. Religion then becomes an incredibly paltry thing. It is not a source of solace and spiritual wonder; it is not a vehicle for bringing symmetry to the chaos of life and meaning to the void – it’s just the act of taking a position on the existence of god. That’s it. How pathetic. – Pete Blackwell
Now Mike if you still want to try to make a case that atheism is a religion go ahead. Let’s see what you have to say now.
And Mike continues: … You are proof that it has its own evangelists. If you truly believed God did not exist why bother trying to convince everyone that He doesn’t. If your religion is correct, what difference does it make if I pray to God the Father in Jesus name.
Answer: When exactly did I claim to be an atheist or tell anyone else that they should become an atheist or try to promote atheism? The article posted above simply points out why atheism is not a religion while refuting another on of your ridiculous claims. When did I say I truly believed God did not exist? When did I say it mattered to me if you prayed in Jesus’ name or if you prayed at all? I’m not a member of a religion nor do I adhere to any political or philosophical worldview. I’ve studied just enough about all of those to know better than to get personally involved with any of them.
My last comment on defending you position all the way to hell was meant to be serious and not a joke. Something everyone should consider.
Answer: Have you considered that you’re in just as much danger of going to the Muslim hell as anyone else is in going to the Christian hell? Suppose you die and wind up face to face the Almighty Allah? What would you do? When you figure out why you don’t think that will happen, why you don’t believe in the Muslim hell or the Muslim God then you’ll understand why other people don’t believe in your hell or your God.
kash is right when she states, “You are quite happy to refer to scholars when they agree with you, and then just as consistently ditch them when they don’t.”
Answer: I’m not able to take seriously “scholars” who actually believe in beings like angels, Satan, demons, talking animals, seraphs and absurd fairy tales. Why should I?
Bernie, I was referring to scholars that believe that there was a historical Jesus and a historical Paul, and that Paul penned at least some of the letters attributed to him. You deny those scholars, too, correct? Or am I confusing you with another atheist that posts here and denies that Jesus or Paul ever existed?
Thanks for finding a quote out of parenthetical remarks that throws Wicca right up there with Satanism in a little list of “widely despised and derided belief systems”, Bernie.
Post 14 – Bernie: “Atheists as a whole are bound by a common disbelief – and nothing else.”
So, atheists believe that there is no God.
Merriam-Webster.com – religion: “4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.
Check.
The refutation you quoted from Pete Blackwell is wrong-headed. Just because Atheism, as a religion, is simple doesn’t mean that it isn’t a religion – and that doesn’t have any bearing on the meaning of the word religion in terms of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and so on. These other religions are just robust…atheism is simple. Pete thinks that the word has to have a highly specific meaning, while the dictionary employs a much more general meaning. We have no reason to consider Pete’s argument to be valid based on that fact alone.
Ironically the best thing that Pete (and his puppy Dudley) have accomplished is pointing out how chaotic and non-unified atheists are. In other words, he really only established reasons to be concerned about the viability of wide-spread atheism. A world divided against itself will fail.
Post 15 – Bernie: When exactly did I claim to be an atheist or tell anyone else that they should become an atheist or try to promote atheism?
Well, don’t be a coward…are you or ain’t you buddy?
It’s rather obvious that you’re Dudley (and maybe others…someone mentioned Boris?). You change your name, but your posts are identical in style and format. You use the same techniques…like claiming to be the winner of the debate (that’s your strongest debate point), posting arguments from popular atheists (not coming up with your own thoughts), claiming that the Bible supports mystical creatures (spreading lies), informing us that the Christian church is dwindling (trying to discourage us)…on and on it goes. Everything matches up. To top it all off, I think, you even implied that you were familiar with being banned (here)…how? Well, by being familiar with the banning process (as a new member), which you cried foul about to the moderator. You joined very soon after Dudley was kicked out…and you acted just like him – at first mild, and then when people didn’t agree, you turn on them and forget about lending respect to your fellow man.
So, atheists believe that there is no God.
Answer: Not exactly. Some do but many simply have a lack of belief in any God and not disbelief in Gods.
Merriam-Webster.com – religion: “4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.
Answer: Atheism is not a system of beliefs though. It is a lack of only one particular belief as the article pointed out. Furthermore atheism is a lack of faith and it isn’t held to with ardor. So your definition doesn’t fit.
The refutation you quoted from Pete Blackwell is wrong-headed. Just because Atheism, as a religion, is simple doesn’t mean that it isn’t a religion – and that doesn’t have any bearing on the meaning of the word religion in terms of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and so on. These other religions are just robust…atheism is simple.
Answer: We have no reason to consider this argument without an explanation as to exactly why atheism is a religion.
Pete thinks that the word has to have a highly specific meaning, while the dictionary employs a much more general meaning. We have no reason to consider Pete’s argument to be valid based on that fact alone.
Answer: This coming from someone who makes arguments based on no facts at all. Like Mike you claim atheism is a religion but cannot give any evidence that it really is. Just saying something is so won’t make it so no matter how badly you wish it is. Let’s see you prove atheism is a religion in light of the post you claim is wrong-headed.
Ironically the best thing that Pete (and his puppy Dudley) have accomplished is pointing out how chaotic and non-unified atheists are. In other words, he really only established reasons to be concerned about the viability of wide-spread atheism. A world divided against itself will fail.
Answer: When has the world ever been unified? It’s full of people with diverse belief systems and no belief systems and always has been. Since this world is the only one you know about what do you have to base your statement on? When has this or any other world failed?
It’s rather obvious you’re confused. My posts aren’t identical to anything even each other because each one is an individual response to a particular post. Other than the post by Blackwell what other article written by an atheist did I post? The Bible certainly does support mystical creatures and beings. What are angels, seraphs, demons, Satan or talking animals? Needless to say the existence of any of these beings or creatures has not been verified scientifically not to mention the fact that sensible and non-religious people don’t believe they exist. When did I say the Christian church was dwindling? When did I imply I was familiar with being banned or a banning process? I’m not a Christian and I made posts that purposely disagreed with what a few different Christians posted and also pointed out that those posts were plagiarized. Do you think I expected these people to all of a sudden agree with me for some reason? When have I been disrespectful to my fellow man? You, Mike and a few other bloggers here have accused me of saying things I haven’t said, believing things I don’t believe, having a religion when I don’t, being stupid, being someone else and have made a few other bogus allegations. I’ve called all of you on all of these things, asked you to substantiate your claims and each and every time I’ve been ignored.
I haven’t posted anything regarding the subject of atheism. Anyone can go back over the posts on this blog and see that whenever fundamentalist Christians see their arguments shot down they accuse their critics of being atheists and then try to make attacks on atheism. Not just me I saw this happen to Fred recently. This is supposed to somehow draw attention away from the fact that the Christian had their arguments refuted. You do it, Mike does it and so do the rest of the Bible literalists. None of your arguments can stand up to criticism on their own merits so you feel you must attack your critics and their imagined ideology. That’s what is really going on here. It’s interesting to note on just how many different threads the subject of atheism has come up here on this blog when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject supposedly being discussed.
John, you should at least have found it amusing that he listed presbyterianism along the despised religions!
I do think that it would be more effective to defend Christianity rather than attacking atheism. It is a far more noble (though perhaps at times more intellectually taxing) pursuit to exalt our own beliefs rather than disparage others’ lack thereof. You can not convince anyone that they are in error by ridiculing their point of view. Bernie himself engages in such tactics; we, as Christians, should not give into such methodology, as it is based on personal arrogance rather than love of and concern for the souls of fellow man.
Kash: #11. Peter was there atleast for one of them, and there were many witnesses to His appearance before Pilate. Also I believe even some of Caesars household became Christians. Who knows how many of the Roman soldiers came to Christ because of what they experienced. And don’t forget the Centurian at the cross. Much of what Christ suffered was very public. And much of His ministry was too.
#12. I’m sure the disciples must have shared this amazing time with the others.
Chris: #13. They are called the gospels of Matthew (a disciple), Mark (a disciple), Luke ( a later disciple), and John ( a disciple), I have no doubt that even if they didn’t actually write down what they heard and saw, someone of the 12 did.
b baggins #19. I was thinking that myself!! But Bernie/Dudley/Boris ?? would have to use another computer surely?
Maz ” Chris: #13. They are called the gospels of Matthew (a disciple), Mark (a disciple), Luke ( a later disciple), and John ( a disciple),” I could very easily write a book called the Gospel of Michael Jackson…it wouldnt mean MJ wrote it, right? You will find a very tiny number of scholars who actually think the gospels were written by disciples named Matthew, Mark etc…
Kash post 21,
Yes, I was rather amused[smile]. But in his defense Bernie was just presenting a quote as he found it, so…
I’m also somewhat surprised that Judaism wasn’t there as well, considering all the crap the Jews have had to put up with throughout the centuries.
Chris C: Quite possible…but I tend to believe that they actually were written by them, or atleast dictated from them to someone else to write what happened.
Bernie, I was referring to scholars that believe that there was a historical Jesus and a historical Paul, and that Paul penned at least some of the letters attributed to him. You deny those scholars, too, correct? Or am I confusing you with another atheist that posts here and denies that Jesus or Paul ever existed?
Answer: First there is a difference between historians and Bible scholars. No honest historian will write about Jesus because historians write based on evidence and there simply isn’t any contemporary evidence that Jesus or any of his disciples ever existed. Christian Bible scholars patently ignore and even reject any and all historical evidence because they think the Bible is historical. But that’s no different than claiming Homer is historical. The Bible contains no history at all. It is fiction from the fist word to the last and there are no exceptions to this.
They are called the gospels of Matthew (a disciple), Mark (a disciple), Luke ( a later disciple), and John ( a disciple),
Answer: The problem with this is that none of the gospels had any names attached to them for the first few centuries of their existence. The gospels are anonymous. No one knows who wrote the gospels, or where they were written, when they were written or why they were written.
b baggins #19. I was thinking that myself!! But Bernie/Dudley/Boris ?? would have to use another computer surely?
Answer: I’ve been using the same computer for about ten years. I’ve noticed on Christian blogs that it is quite a common practice for fundies to claim someone is actually some other person who has been solidly refuted at some time in the past and that they were also a very nasty person. This is a common ploy Christians use when they see their arguments demolished and have no response to their critic. So they just claim all these problems have been addressed before when in fact they have not. So bagins and whoever else is doing this is only fooling themselves while avoiding dealing with the harsh and correct criticisms of their dogmatically held superstitions.
I’m sorry, Bernie, but I still disagree. Most historians, even secular ones, think the evidence that Jesus and Paul existed are strong, even though they dispute most of the biographical details in the gospels themselves. The position that Jesus is a complete fiction, and even moreso that Paul is a complete fiction, is actually quite out of step with mainstream historical thought.
John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on “The Christ,” has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.
Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod’s massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ’s heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.
In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on “The Antiquities of the Jews.” In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of “The Antiquities of the Jews” appeared, in which occurred this passage: “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.”
Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his “Evangelical Demonstration,” (Book III., p.124), in these words: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness.”
Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew–a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ–that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.
For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: “It is interpolated with many additional clauses.” Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.” Bishop Warburton denounced it as “a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too.” Chambers’ Encyclopaedia says: “The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation.”
In the “Annals” of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of “Christus” as being the founder of a party called Christians–a body of people “who were abhorred for their crimes.” These words occur in Tacitus’ account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the “Annals” in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century–six hundred years after Tacitus’ death. The “Annals” were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus’ time–so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.
The name “Jesus” was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, “Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!” who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.
The word “Christ,” the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word “Messiah,” was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant “the Anointed One.”
The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.
These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of “Jesus” and many political leaders assumed the title of “Christ.” All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his “Sources of the Morality of the Gospels,” and John M. Robertson in his “Pagan Christs.” – Marsall Gauvin
Bernie #29. If you aren’t anyone else then we recant!! (But you do sound just like them!)
Kash,
Produce some convincing evidence from outside the Bible that Jesus Christ actually existed and post it here. You’ve been hoodwinked by Christian apologists who have convinced you that there really is some historical evidence that Jesus existed when there really isn’t. Look at what Christian apologists foist on the public as evidence for Jesus. You’ll be shocked at the spurious nature of this “evidence.” I’ve read all 24 sentences by Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius that Christian apologists claim proves Jesus existed. Josephus is a forgery and the other three second century historians never once mention Jesus Christ by name but only the existence of Christians. Not very good support for the supposed “best documented event in history.” Look the Bible claims angels exist and announced the birth of Jesus. The hypothesis that angels exist fails completely do to the lack of evidence required for that hypothesis. Now let’s see some real good evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed. No more appeals to authority. I’m not impressed with your “authorities.”
Bernie: No one has convinced me that Jesus Christ is Real and that He is alive more than Christ Himself has proven to me. I KNOW He lives in me, and that is enough proof I need. I am just sorry you have to have so much evidence to back up something so wonderful for mankind! Our God, the Creator of the Universe humbled Himself and came to His own creation to save them from their own rebelliousness and sin. No wonder Sir Isaac Newton penned the hymn ”Amazing Grace”.
And besides all that, thousands of people have seen the risen Christ, and He has even appeared to those in the Moslem world. I really feel sorry that you cannot see the Truth. And I wonder why you so stubbornly and arrogantly rebel against such an amazing Truth.
By believing our government is not enslaving us and accepting the notion that the dollar will maintain its value, you have indeed made a prediction.
Answer: Once again you completely ignore the potent refutations of your posts and attack a position I do not hold. The value of the dollar fluctuates on a daily basis. Why don’t you address points I’ve made and questions I’ve asked you instead of inventing straw man arguments and pretending to knock them over? We both know why don’t we Mike? Everyone reading this knows don’t they?
Your FAITH in government and the dollar and the way you defend it (no logical / reasoned argument for your belief is similar to a religious belief. No for my NEW “like I said” you are an ideologue with derangement syndrome, it is a waste of time to discuss anything with you.
Answer: Right after I explain how I don’t have any ideology and why you call me an ideologue and claim I’m deranged. More proof you cannot respond to the criticisms of your ridiculous claims. FYI the government is made up of American citizens who are no different than the rest of us. None of them can keep a secret, even the CIA. Your conspiracy theories are about as deluded and asinine as they could be.
Inspite of the obvious disaster that awaits this nation, kash and Bernie have full faith and confidence that our politicians will do the right thing. If it weren’t so tragic, I would be LMSS – Laughing myself silly.
Answer: Are you kidding? No one has full confidence that politicians will get anything right. We know they are people like the rest of us. Only dummer and more dishonest.
Bernie and kash, last week Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world…you know the guy that runs Bershire Hathaway and owns companies in nearly all sectors…said, “I DON’T SEE ANY DEFLATION….I SEE SERIOUS INFLATION IN THE YEARS AHEAD.”
Answer: Warren Buffet is an outspoken atheist and has made a good case for disbelief in any God. Should we all listen to him and become atheists too do you think? After all you seem to think Buffet is a brilliant man.
Do you not see the evil of a fiat currency. It robs the poor. The bankers and industrialist closest to the new money created benefit…those at the end of the line, the consumer..the average citizen, suffers. This is why the Bible makes 4 references to diverse weights and measures and none are complimentary.
Do you not believe God?
Answer: This is a prime example of my earlier post #20 on the thread about whether Jesus rose form the dead where I described how when a Christian sees their arguments demolished they immediately accuse their critics of being atheists.
This is what I said: “Anyone can go back over the posts on this blog and see that whenever fundamentalist Christians see their arguments shot down they accuse their critics of being atheists and then try to make attacks on atheism.” Thanks for proving that point so soundly and quickly for me Mike.
To Kash we read: “You are economically ignorant. You actually believe that the amount of money circulating in an economy makes people prosperous!”
Mike is an economic and religious ignoramus. Put him on your ignore list. I am.
Oops the post above belongs on another thread.
Bernie: No one has convinced me that Jesus Christ is Real and that He is alive more than Christ Himself has proven to me.
Answer: Now that is quite impossible. Other people told you about Jesus and put the superstitions you hold about this figure in your head. In other words Jesus didn’t just introduce himself to you completely unknown to you before.
I KNOW He lives in me, and that is enough proof I need. I am just sorry you have to have so much evidence to back up something so wonderful for mankind!
Answer: People of other religions make the same claims about their Gods. I can’t accept the exact same evidence and claims from you that you would not accept from members of other religions. Why should I?
Our God, the Creator of the Universe humbled Himself and came to His own creation to save them from their own rebelliousness and sin.
Answer: Why would God have to do this to save anyone? If an omnipotent God wanted to save people he could just save them. Why go through all this rigmarole of getting crucified?
No wonder Sir Isaac Newton penned the hymn ”Amazing Grace”.
Answer: You’ve posted some pretty nutty things but this statement certainly reflects the depth of research you do on the subjects you talk about. Amazing Grace was written by a slave trader and naval deserter named John Newton. A real fine, upstanding Christian man.
And besides all that, thousands of people have seen the risen Christ, and He has even appeared to those in the Moslem world.
Answer: How many of these visions of Christ have been scientifically verified? None.
I really feel sorry that you cannot see the Truth. And I wonder why you so stubbornly and arrogantly rebel against such an amazing Truth.
Answer: Uh, because it isn’t true. That’s why. The kind of arguments people like you make only convince people you don’t know what you are talking about. Isaac Newton wrote Amazing Grace!
Bernie, Why would Philo mention Jesus? He would not have thought him important to what he was writing, as he undoubtably viewed him as a blasphemer rightly executed, if he bothered himself about Jesus at all. Jesus was not some sort of rock star when he died, he was an obscure itinerant preacher. It was only after His resurrection appearances that his disciples got the courage to start spreading the word about him and his message. Even the gospels themselves point out that his disciples didn’t “get it” until after he had died. Contemporary scholars didn’t write about him because they figured he was just another messiah wannabe…if they had even heard about him at all.
In Josephus there are two references to Jesus, the one now widely believed to be a forgery by Eusebius, but there is another shorter reference. And I find it amusing that you dismiss Tacitus based on nothing but supposition that it COULD have been modified, although there is no reason to think it was. And what about Pliny the Younger’s reference to Christ? And again, for there to have been no Jesus who inspired the movement of Christianity, you must also do away with Paul, since his letters are full of Jesus the Christ and the other apostles that were with Christ in the gospels. I have a question for you: name another person who never held a position of power and never wrote anything himself that we know so much about as Jesus Christ? Most of what we know about history we only know BECAUSE there were people writing stuff down, mostly about people in power and major events. Here is a penniless itinerant preacher who left behind no writing himself, yet we have four official accounts of his life and several other questionable ones, not to mention the letters of Paul and other writers writing about him shortly after his death. Do you not see how unique that is? It is obvious to me why Philo or Seneca or most of the others on Remsberg’s list would not mention him. They did not think he mattered. They were wrong.
Post 20 – regarding atheist belief in no God – Bernie: Not exactly. Some do but many simply have a lack of belief in any God and not disbelief in Gods.
I cannot have a “lack of belief” regarding Santa Claus. I could only exhibit such a state if I had never heard anything about Santa Claus (AKA only if I had a lack of theories/ideas/definitions about Santa Claus). Because I am aware of what Santa Claus is supposed to be I must accept, reject, or remain uncertain about the existence of Santa Claus as I know he has been defined.
I could just as easily have a “lack of belief” for sushi. I have never eaten sushi. I have never seen sushi. I have heard much tell of it though, so I must accept, reject, or remain uncertain about it. A “lack of belief” requires complete ignorance to accomplish. You cannot define something (even partially) AND have a “lack of belief”. This is just another safe position that cowardly atheists use to avoid being honest.
Merriam-Webster.com – religion: “4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.
Bernie: Atheism is not a system of beliefs though. It is a lack of only one particular belief as the article pointed out. Furthermore atheism is a lack of faith and it isn’t held to with ardor. So your definition doesn’t fit.
The definition does NOT require a system of belief. It requires “a cause, principle, OR system of beliefs” (emphasis added). Atheism is a faithful position (faith that there is no God), it is held with ardor (I’ve never met an atheist that would abandon his position, including you) – and it fits into the definition through the word “principle”. Dictionary.com says, principle: “3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet.” This definition fits perfectly.
Further – Dictionary.com says, tenet: “any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.” That certainly catches atheists in its net.
An atheist is merely someone who is told there is a God, and then doesn’t believe it, probably because no one proved their claim. Its not about faith. An atheists mind would be easily changed, if someone could prove God existed.
And don’t tell me they have. I’ve heard probably every argument for the existence of God, and its all rhetoric and no proof.
Post 39 – X: An atheist is merely someone who is told there is a God, and then doesn’t believe it, probably because no one proved their claim.
Neither did the atheist prove their claim.
X: Its not about faith.
It is completely about faith. Prove that God doesn’t exist. If you don’t want to have a faithful position take the agnostic position.
X: An atheists mind would be easily changed, if someone could prove God existed.
So, basically, an atheist’s mind is locked into faithful God-denial.
X: And don’t tell me they have. I’ve heard probably every argument for the existence of God, and its all rhetoric and no proof.
I don’t think it’s possible for us to prove that God exists, that would defeat the purpose of free-will. God will prove His existence to every individual in good time, and at that time you won’t be allowed to cowardly reverse your position.
Bernie: ”Answer: Now that is quite impossible. Other people told you about Jesus and put the superstitions you hold about this figure in your head. In other words Jesus didn’t just introduce himself to you completely unknown to you before.”
I don’t think I can say anything to help you understand that I don’t just have a mental belief in Christ, or a spiritual belief separate from any experience. My knowledge of Christ is not in my mind, it is a liv ing reality within me which is as real as the lungs that I breathe in with, as real as the beat within my heart, and as real as the eyes that see the world around me. But no matter…..YOU will never see what it means to have Christ live in you bevause you just DON’T WANT HIM THERE. That is so sad Bernie. So sad.
”Answer: Why would God have to do this to save anyone? If an omnipotent God wanted to save people he could just save them. Why go through all this rigmarole of getting crucified?”
Romans 1 v 21b-22 tells us that, ”…they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and theur foolish heart was darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..”
And in Ephesians 4 v 17b-18 talks about Gentiles who walk ”in the vanity of their minds, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart…”
This tells me the state of your heart and mind Bernie, vain, foolish, ignorant, and darkened….you are incapable of understanding spiritual matters.
Ah! You spotted my deliberate mistake!! I knew his name was Newton but got the man wrong!! Well I never said I was perfect! None of us are.
X: ”And don’t tell me they have. I’ve heard probably every argument for the existence of God, and its all rhetoric and no proof.”
And you have probably heard every argument against the existence of God and that is also all rhetoric and has no proof! So you have accepted what you WANTED to believe. Atheists tend to want to remain atheists unless they have a blinding flash in the sky like Paul (then Saul), or Jesus shows up right in front of them and says ”Here I am….”. He knows your heart, and He knows how to respond to it.
Maz, if that were true, there would be no atheists.
baggins, the burden of proof lies with the one making the outlandish claim, that there is a god, even without proof.
“This tells me the state of your heart and mind Bernie, vain, foolish, ignorant, and darkened….you are incapable of understanding spiritual matters.” – mherman
What nice Christian thoughts. I can just feel the Christian love and charity.
Maz: “Atheists tend to want to remain atheists unless they have a blinding flash in the sky like Paul (then Saul), or Jesus shows up right in front of them and says ”Here I am….”.” What’s wrong with that? Many an atheist has become a Chrisitan because they did experience such a phenomena. I have had versions of a Damascus experience (though not as dramatic, I suppose, since I wasn’t struck blind for a while) twice in my life. Atheists that then become Christians tend to become very dedicated, authentic Christians when the change does occur, often moreso than those who just sort of “drift” into belief in Christ.
Baggins: “Neither did the atheist prove their claim.
” No one has yet proved to me that Bertrand Russell’s famous teopot is not actually in orbit between earth and mars. You cannot prove a negative without absolute knowledge which obviously none of us has.
On a side note, I think it is fair to call atheism a worldview, but not a religion. Being an atheist does affect the way one looks at the world. Im sure Bernie or others will jump on me and say, “atheism is just a lack of belief, it doesnt affect one’s life any more than not believing in the invisible pink unicorn.” I think for most, though not all, atheists, their view of the world is in some way determined by their atheism because of the fact that the world is predominantly theistic. You cant be the member of a ~10% minority and not have it affect the way you view the rest of the world and its inhabitats. Apparently Ive become to moderate, weak atheist on here…
X: ”Maz, if that were true, there would be no atheists.”
Why?
Fred: This came from Gods own Word, not my thoughts.
Kash: So you think it is OK for people to demand God to show up so they can believe in Him?
Jesus said, ”Blessed are those who havn’t seen and yet believe.”
Maz: Yes, those who don’t demand to see are blessed, but often those who DO demand to see are also blessed. Why should it bother you in what manner someone comes to saving knowledge in Christ, just as long as they do? Do you not pray every day that “something” will occur to lead your non believing family members to Christ? Do you specify that it only be a change in their heart, and not something too flashy?
Kash: It doesn’t bother me how people come as long as they come with a heart that desires to know Him and follow Him. But demanding evidence while opposing the truth will not cause God to come onto the scene and perform for them.
Atheists would be more than happy to change their position if God revealed himself. But he hasn’t, nor do I expect him to.
X post 43 and 52,
Have you ever considered the possibility that your attitude is your own biggest shield against getting proof of the Divine? Let me put it this way….if you start to believe, then things will start to happen that helps to “prove” to you[or Bernie] that things like Divine powers exist, which in turn will help increase your faith/hope/ belief, which will bring more revelations into your life.
If your looking for proof of the Divine/supernatural in the same way that scientists look for evidences for evolution then you will always remain unsatisfied. Divine/supernatural/spiritual powers don’t seem to work that way[sympathetic smile]. It is my belief that one must open themselves up to at least the possibility of something “being there”, before things can be revealed to one personally.
I can elaborate on this idea if you or Bernie would like me to, but not tonight.
By the way, it’s good to hear from you once again X[smile].
No, Maz, you thought those thoughts. You wrote that stuff. Now you own them. You can’t dodge that.
I suppose in this respect I do believe in the idea of “election”. For whatever reason, God does make Himself manifest to some seekers while seeming to remain hidden from others. Is it God that is doing the choosing, or the will of the seeker, or a bit of both? All I know is that I was predisposed by upbringing and intellectual bent to be agnostic on the subject of God (and even, for a brief time, belligerantly atheist), but for whatever reason He would not leave me alone and I was repeatedly drawn to the Christ of the gospels (not the Christ of the church, necessarily) until I had a vision one Palm Sunday that changed my life forever. In that sense I was “elected” by God. I pray for the same thing to happen to everyone that I love, since it is the best thing that ever could have happened to me. (That doesn’t mean I didn’t struggle with my faith following that event, but I had a core strength of belief because of it that I could cling to when doubt or confusion struck, which happened often in my early faith walk, especially when confronted with the disconnect between Christ and the culture that claims Him.) Anyway, it may yet happen to X or to Bernie or to anyone. And if it does, I do not think God will hold it against them that they required a bit more persuading than the average believer. He is the one who made us, and our stubborness is no surprise to Him.
bagins,
Fred, x, and Chris have soundly and thoroughly refuted all your posts already. After that there isn’t too much I can say. So I’ll just put my two cents worth in:
I cannot have a “lack of belief” regarding Santa Claus. I could only exhibit such a state if I had never heard anything about Santa Claus (AKA only if I had a lack of theories/ideas/definitions about Santa Claus). Because I am aware of what Santa Claus is supposed to be I must accept, reject, or remain uncertain about the existence of Santa Claus as I know he has been defined.
Answer: We can’t prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist. However, we can be reasonably certain of his nonexistence when we make a judgment based on all the available data. The important thing is that it’s not important whether Santa exists since it doesn’t appear to matter one way or another. Likewise it isn’t important whether there is a God or not because there are no verifiable consequences one way or another.
I could just as easily have a “lack of belief” for sushi. I have never eaten sushi. I have never seen sushi. I have heard much tell of it though, so I must accept, reject, or remain uncertain about it. A “lack of belief” requires complete ignorance to accomplish. You cannot define something (even partially) AND have a “lack of belief”.
Answer: Well I can’t define God. If you define God for me though, then I’ll tell you why I don’t believe in your definition of God.
This is just another safe position that cowardly atheists use to avoid being honest.
Answer: Atheists who live in Christian and Muslim cultures are well aware of the threat of eternal damnation for their supposed crime of unbelief. No atheist fears this threat of unimaginable violence yet you somehow find the audacity to call atheists cowards. You’re the one who is afraid of invisible beings here is no evidence for and you’re scared stiff of the threat of hell. Look in the mirror when you say the word coward.
The definition does NOT require a system of belief. It requires “a cause, principle, OR system of beliefs” (emphasis added). Atheism is a faithful position (faith that there is no God), it is held with ardor (I’ve never met an atheist that would abandon his position, including you) – and it fits into the definition through the word “principle”. Dictionary.com says, principle: “3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet.” This definition fits perfectly.
Answer: A person who claims there is no God is an anti-theist. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge of God, atheism a lack of belief in God. What you are attempting to do is redefine the term atheist because you really don’t have any arguments against atheism or agnosticism. So you make straw man arguments and pretend to then debunk them.
Further – Dictionary.com says, tenet: “any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.” That certainly catches atheists in its net.
Answer: Atheism doesn’t have any principles doctrines, dogmas nor is it a profession, group or movement. It is a word that describes people who don’t believe what other people claim about their Gods and other assorted boogymen.
First of all I never claimed to be an atheist nor did I bring the subject up. Why all the unwarranted fear of atheism and dislike of atheists? Why do people who think for themselves, rely on reason over of faith, educated guesses rather than adherence to blind faith dogma and devise there own morals and ethics instead getting them from an ancient and absurd holy book intimidate you so much? How would it affect your life if you woke up tomorrow and no longer believed there was a God?
Post 43 – X: baggins, the burden of proof lies with the one making the outlandish claim, that there is a god, even without proof.
Humorous, but our existence is all the proof we (at least, I) need. Why do you exist? It’s hard for me to think that all of creation could exist for no particular reason.
No one said that an affirmation of God requires no faith. It requires faith. It also requires faith to deny God.
Post 46 – Chris C.: No one has yet proved to me that Bertrand Russell’s famous teopot is not actually in orbit between earth and mars. You cannot prove a negative without absolute knowledge which obviously none of us has.
I’m not going to argue that an invisible teapot isn’t orbiting in space. Why would I? It has no bearing on any question that concerns life. God’s existence on the other hand makes an enormous difference. And finally, of course you can prove a negative (in a useful sense), unless the negative requires absolute knowledge or absolute sensory perception or whatever. For example: I can be assured that an anvil is not resting upon my head. Or I can effectively prove that there isn’t a regular SUV parked in my living room.
Chris C.: On a side note, I think it is fair to call atheism a worldview, but not a religion.
I consider the terms synonymous. I suppose you avoid accepting the word “religion” for the same reasons that many Christians avoid it. Both words label how a person sees this world – as in, for what purpose does all of creation exist? For atheists it’s no particular reason, just a bunch of inconsequential ones, and it all may as well not exist. The Christian worldview is radically different.
Chris C.: Being an atheist does affect the way one looks at the world.
Absolutely. I have accurately figured out several people’s worldviews/religions just based upon the way they talk/behave.
Post 55 – kash: I suppose in this respect I do believe in the idea of “election”.
I have some trouble with the doctrine of election. How can anyone believe that God would ordain some people to hell and others to heaven, and not let them choose for themselves. Election and free-will do not work well together. Thus election and a meaningful life don’t go together either. I do believe that some are “elect” – in that they have different/special abilities…but to say that some people have no choice but to choose God and others, in the same way, must reject God…that just doesn’t sound characteristic of the God I know.
Speaking of doctrines….I’ve heard the idea that people who go to hell are punished based upon the evil of their life. For example: If all that Bernie was guilty of was tormenting Christians, then he would be faced with the same sort of torment. Hitler was certainly guilty of far more, and would therefore be faced with more.
That makes more sense to me (and I think with Scriptures too, but I’d have to explore more), than to say that all unsaved people will simply receive the exact same sentence, no matter what their crimes.
I know that it is mentioned that if you do more with what you have, then God will reward you in heaven even more. So it would seem that the inverse would be true as well.
Post 56 – Bernie: We can’t prove Santa Claus doesn’t exist. However, we can be reasonably certain of his nonexistence when we make a judgment based on all the available data. The important thing is that it’s not important whether Santa exists since it doesn’t appear to matter one way or another. Likewise it isn’t important whether there is a God or not because there are no verifiable consequences one way or another.
Actually we can. Santa Claus is said to (indirectly) visit every girl and boy, by leaving presents for naughty or nice. All I have to do is, on Christmas, go to ANY child’s home and see if presents from Santa Claus are deposited… If there are none then Santa Claus, as defined, does not exist.
God’s existence is a game changer, in the biggest sense. That is why religion is the most hotly debated topic in the world. Your point (to the world) is falling on deaf ears, everyone knows better.
Bernie: Atheists who live in Christian and Muslim cultures are well aware of the threat of eternal damnation for their supposed crime of unbelief. No atheist fears this threat of unimaginable violence yet you somehow find the audacity to call atheists cowards. You’re the one who is afraid of invisible beings here is no evidence for and you’re scared stiff of the threat of hell. Look in the mirror when you say the word coward.
Hah! Atheists deny what they are afraid of…by the way, you still have not answered the question, are you or are you not an atheist? Atheists hide their viewpoints more than anyone else, who is undeclared in this conversation, you or me? When I look in the mirror maybe I’ll say the word coward if I see you huddled in a dark corner behind me. I hope you walk into the light to be seen clearly.
Most of the rest of your post is pointless. The dictionary has spoken, no more discussion is warranted.
I’ll respond to some of these questions,
Bernie: First of all I never claimed to be an atheist nor did I bring the subject up. Why all the unwarranted fear of atheism and dislike of atheists? Why do people who think for themselves, rely on reason over of faith, educated guesses rather than adherence to blind faith dogma and devise there own morals and ethics instead getting them from an ancient and absurd holy book intimidate you so much?
You don’t have to bring up subjects for the subjects to be discussed, nor do you have to publicly claim to be an atheist – to be a known atheist. Atheism is high blasphemy. It’s the hatred of atheism that drives my participation in this discussion. You don’t intimidate me because your arguments are ineffective in my eyes. You are putting your life on the line and I’m trying to call you back. You don’t have to listen, but I have to try. Jesus said that I should love my enemies, and I agree, completely. The half-wits that go around “inventing” there own moral systems, ignoring the giant upon which I stand, will be drowned when the water rises. It won’t be because they couldn’t climb the ladder Christians lowered down to them, it will be because they refuse to climb. The ancient Holy book sure kicks Bernie’s derriere.
Bernie: How would it affect your life if you woke up tomorrow and no longer believed there was a God?
If I lost my faith, then I would lose my reason for existing, and I would lose my life.
Existence isn’t proof god exists. You’re going to have to come up with new material to tell me something I haven’t heard. You, nor any other Christian has provided legitimate proof, thus, we remain atheist.
X: #52, With the attitude you have He probably won’t. You need to open your HEART and ask Him (like so many have) if He really is God then ”please reveal Yourself to me”. God always listens to the attitude of the HEART.
John: #53….I posted #62 before I read yours!! Well, we agree on something!
Fred: ”No, Maz, you thought those thoughts. You wrote that stuff. Now you own them. You can’t dodge that.”
I am not the one dodging the truth!
Kash: #55. Though I do not believe in ‘election’ in the sense you may, but I would agree with a lot of what you said. I too was drawn to Christ, whether because of the foundation that began at Sunday School when I was a child, but it took until I was in my 20′s before I felt the Holy Spirit woo me. I never had a vision, but they do not make anyones experience any less or more real. I made a decision to follow Jesus, and I wanted to do it with all my heart. I still want to do that over 35 years later.
b baggins: Good answers overall. You saved me the pointless task!
X: Can I ask you, why you don’t want to believe God exists. It sounds like a typical atheistic response…..I won’t believe unless I see!!
So Bernie, are you telling us that you are in fact NOT an Atheist?
If you are, then what exactly are you, an…..overly Atheistic Agnostic?
Baggins, I am no Calvinist when it comes to election. I was just saying that in regards to what Maz and I were discussing (those who demand some sort of ‘proof’ or ‘experience’ before they can come to faith in God), some lucky souls are born restless until they find peace in Jesus, while others are born restless yet never find rest. In my case, I do not feel that it was anything that I specifically did or did not do that brought me to Christ, but that He (the Holy Spirit) drew me inexorably to him so that I could not find peace until I acknowledged Him. For me, it would have taken a greater act of will to resist Him than to accept Him. In that way, looking back, I do feel I was “predestined” to salvation. Why others don’t have that same experience is beyond me.
I would love to believe that God exists. It would make my life much less complicated. I don’t necessarily have to see God to believe in her. An undeniable hunch would suffice. I just find the idea of God very unlikely.
X: God is not a ”her”, He is a Father, that is how we relate to Him through Jesus His Son by the Holy Spirit. If you seek Him with all your heart you will find Him for He has promised this in His Word. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you, He is waiting to come into your life if you will open up your heart to Him.
bagins
Actually we can. Santa Claus is said to (indirectly) visit every girl and boy, by leaving presents for naughty or nice. All I have to do is, on Christmas, go to ANY child’s home and see if presents from Santa Claus are deposited… If there are none then Santa Claus, as defined, does not exist.
Answer: By examining the claims made about the Christian God in the same way we examine those made about Santa Claus we can prove God, as defined by Christians does not exist.
God’s existence is a game changer, in the biggest sense. That is why religion is the most hotly debated topic in the world. Your point (to the world) is falling on deaf ears, everyone knows better.
Answer: What are the VERIFIABLE consequences that make God’s existence such a game changer?
Hah! Atheists deny what they are afraid of…by the way, you still have not answered the question, are you or are you not an atheist?
Answer: While it might make you feel better to claim other people are afraid of the Christian hell it can be demonstrated that the only people afraid of the Christian hell are Christians. How? Because they’re the only people who believe it exists. Your mind is so narrowed and burdened with cultic religious dogma you cannot understand other points of view.
Atheists hide their viewpoints more than anyone else, who is undeclared in this conversation, you or me? When I look in the mirror maybe I’ll say the word coward if I see you huddled in a dark corner behind me. I hope you walk into the light to be seen clearly.
Answer: What am I afraid of exactly?
You don’t have to bring up subjects for the subjects to be discussed, nor do you have to publicly claim to be an atheist – to be a known atheist. Atheism is high blasphemy.
Answer: One would have to believe a God existed to be a blasphemer. A Muslim might say you are a blasphemer because you don’t believe in Allah. Would he be right?
It’s the hatred of atheism that drives my participation in this discussion.
Answer: Why do you hate atheism?
You don’t intimidate me because your arguments are ineffective in my eyes.
Answer: I don’t believe you but my arguments are effective in the eyes of other people and there are several other people on this blog who also disagree with you and their arguments support mine. So other people can see the validity of my arguments and the futility of yours. That’s what’s important in these kinds of public forums.
You are putting your life on the line and I’m trying to call you back. You don’t have to listen, but I have to try.
Answer: Your arguments are unconvincing. I can’t make myself believe in the ridiculous beings that you believe in. Belief in the Christian God requires a total surrender of a person’s mind. Where is any evidence for angels, Satan, seraphs, demons or that demons cause diseases or that giants roamed the earth or that people used to live for centuries or any of the other ridiculous claims made in the Bible? No one is ever going to convince me that the Bible is anything but fiction.
Jesus said that I should love my enemies, and I agree, completely.
Answer: Why am I your enemy exactly?
The half-wits that go around “inventing” there own moral systems, ignoring the giant upon which I stand, will be drowned when the water rises.
Answer: People who have a scientific, humanistic, philosophic or materialistic worldviews and devise their own morals and ethics by way of critical analysis are not half-wits. They’re intelligent people who know better than to get involve with man-made religious dogma and doctrine that you call a “giant” that was invented to control the masses the way you have.
It won’t be because they couldn’t climb the ladder Christians lowered down to them, it will be because they refuse to climb. The ancient Holy book sure kicks Bernie’s derriere.
Answer: Sure it does. Let’s see if the Bible can stand up to Bernie. Who built Heshbon? How did Hannah go often to the House of Yahweh (1Sam 1:7) when the Temple had not been built yet or even in her son Samuel’s lifetime? Did the men traveling with Paul hear the voice or see the light? Right now, critics are picking apart that ancient holy book like never before. The general public is quickly being made aware of all the flaws, discrepancies, absurdities, scientific and historical inaccuracies and general nonsense in the Bible. Anyone can go on the Internet and read brutal criticisms of the Bible and the apologists who attempt to defend it.
If I lost my faith, then I would lose my reason for existing, and I would lose my life.
Answer: You don’t know that. But by admitting you think that you’ve also admitted that you cannot make an objective decision about your belief system. You don’t think you could live without it. So if it were false you wouldn’t want to know it. I think that’s all I need to know.
I’ve tried. 3 times. It doesn’t work like that.
Post 70 – X: I would love to believe that God exists. It would make my life much less complicated. I don’t necessarily have to see God to believe in her. An undeniable hunch would suffice. I just find the idea of God very unlikely.
You find the idea of God very unlikely? Haha. Also, when I mentioned existence as more than adequate proof…why didn’t you explain why it wasn’t enough for you? You just said I have to come up with something else. Somehow everything in this vast and mysterious universe isn’t enough, but perhaps something I say will make the difference. That’s funny.
Post 73 – X: I’ve tried. 3 times. It doesn’t work like that.
You “would love to believe that God exists”? Why would you love that? Do you really want to walk the straight and narrow, pursuing perfection? If so, Jesus would love to have you join the crew. We need as many people being examples for the world as we can get.
Existence is not enough because the universe could very well exist without a God. I’m not sure why anyone would think that the universe could only be caused if a God exists. The vastness and mysteriousness of the universe is a reason why I DON’T believe in god. Its so vast and mysterious, why the heck would you think god would be anthropomorphic?
I would love to believe that God exists. I would love to believe that when my family dies, they’ll spend eternity in heaven, somewhere where they could be happy. I would love to believe that the evil people in the world receive just punishment. I would love to believe everything happens for a reason, and that all things work together for good. I would love to believe that I had a divine protector, who I could love and would love me. I would LOVE to believe in God, but I don’t and I can’t.
Post 72 – Bernie: By examining the claims made about the Christian God in the same way we examine those made about Santa Claus we can prove God, as defined by Christians does not exist.
Exactly! The amazing thing is, once you look at the claims with the right frame of mind, you’ll find that they couldn’t possibly be false.
Bernie: What are the VERIFIABLE consequences that make God’s existence such a game changer?
God granted me life. I just had to realize that without God I wouldn’t exist at all, so I am preparing myself and serving. Without God there are no consequences, but with God you’ll realize that your decisions are important. It comes down to meaning in my eyes. What’s the point in living an accidental life in a meaningless universe? None of my choices would mean anything in such a world, so why bother with decision-making? A tree may as well fall on me right now and crush me, if that’s what existence is.
Bernie: While it might make you feel better to claim other people are afraid of the Christian hell it can be demonstrated that the only people afraid of the Christian hell are Christians. How? Because they’re the only people who believe it exists. Your mind is so narrowed and burdened with cultic religious dogma you cannot understand other points of view.
Have you seen someone who was afraid? They usually close their eyes and hope that the source of their fear ceases to exist. People who choose not want to walk the straight and narrow close their eyes to their sin and to the punishment of sin. But do not fear, Jesus will forgive your crimes of thought and deed if only you will own up… It is your life, live as you see fit. My recommendation is that you pursue perfection, as Jesus did, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Bernie: What am I afraid of exactly?
You still haven’t answered the question about your beliefs. You know, Dudley went to a Christian College too…and he claimed to know koine greek.
Bernie: Why do you hate atheism?
Because it is a rebellion to God and it is dangerous for humanity.
Bernie: I don’t believe you but my arguments are effective in the eyes of other people and there are several other people on this blog who also disagree with you and their arguments support mine. So other people can see the validity of my arguments and the futility of yours. That’s what’s important in these kinds of public forums.
This isn’t a popularity contest, nor do I depend upon what is popular, as you seem to… If you garnered the support of everyone here it would make no difference about what is true and right, so it would make no difference to me (except that I’d be sad that so many people could be wrong).
Bernie: Your arguments are unconvincing. I can’t make myself believe in the ridiculous beings that you believe in. Belief in the Christian God requires a total surrender of a person’s mind. Where is any evidence for angels, Satan, seraphs, demons or that demons cause diseases or that giants roamed the earth or that people used to live for centuries or any of the other ridiculous claims made in the Bible? No one is ever going to convince me that the Bible is anything but fiction.
I cannot convince anyone, only God working through me (or someone/something else) has a chance. But your life is in your control, and God wouldn’t take that away from you. You don’t seem to understand that that’s what hell is…you in control of your life instead of God.
My beliefs are not ridiculous in the least. But you are right…I desire most to serve God. Anything less would be pointless.
Bernie: People who have a scientific, humanistic, philosophic or materialistic worldviews and devise their own morals and ethics by way of critical analysis are not half-wits. They’re intelligent people who know better than to get involve with man-made religious dogma and doctrine that you call a “giant” that was invented to control the masses the way you have.
They are wrong for avoiding the correct answer, even if they are otherwise intelligent.
Who controls me, but God (or myself when I err)? And I don’t try to control the masses, but I believe that people should act right. I would only consider force to protect others (as police officers are supposed to do).
Bernie: Sure it does. Let’s see if the Bible can stand up to Bernie. Who built Heshbon? How did Hannah go often to the House of Yahweh (1Sam 1:7) when the Temple had not been built yet or even in her son Samuel’s lifetime? Did the men traveling with Paul hear the voice or see the light? Right now, critics are picking apart that ancient holy book like never before. The general public is quickly being made aware of all the flaws, discrepancies, absurdities, scientific and historical inaccuracies and general nonsense in the Bible. Anyone can go on the Internet and read brutal criticisms of the Bible and the apologists who attempt to defend it.
The Moabites? Hannah went to God’s altar, not the Temple? I’m not sure if the men traveling with Paul experienced anything, why does that concern you?
You didn’t seem to accomplish anything just now, I guess your derriere is still kicked.
Bernie: You don’t know that. But by admitting you think that you’ve also admitted that you cannot make an objective decision about your belief system. You don’t think you could live without it. So if it were false you wouldn’t want to know it. I think that’s all I need to know.
I can’t see any meaning without God, only pointless, short-term illusions. What about you?
If I have false beliefs then I erase them. I have changed radically over the short time that I’ve taken God seriously. I was raised a Christian, but I didn’t really understand what that meant until I got out on my own. Now I’m serving/preparing myself to serve. Physical fitness, mental acuity, moral obedience… My lifestyle is becoming more minimalistic, less wasteful, less dependent upon technology and the modern infrastructure, and more natural, more outgoing, etc. I still have plenty to work on…
Post 75 – X: Existence is not enough because the universe could very well exist without a God. I’m not sure why anyone would think that the universe could only be caused if a God exists. The vastness and mysteriousness of the universe is a reason why I DON’T believe in god. Its so vast and mysterious, why the heck would you think god would be anthropomorphic?
How could the universe “very well exist without a God”? May as well explain everything first, lest I think you’re a crock.
Has anyone ever heard of anything more amazing than humankind? I mean, what the heck, right?
X: I…love…God… I would love…family… …evil people…receive…punishment. I…I would LOVE to believe in God, but I don’t and I can’t.
You don’t because the universe is “too vast”, and God is “too unlikely”. If you lived in a snow globe and could see something murky beyond, then maybe, maybe you could believe in God…but as it is “too vast” “too unlikely”. How are these things qualified? Really, are you saying anything at all? Why can’t you believe in God?
X #73. Oh my dear person (I’m not sure what gender you are but guess you are male) just trying ”3 times” is not enough. If you REALLY wanted to know God you would seek Him with ALL YOUR HEART. If He knows you aren’t sincere or want Him for other reasons other than just to know His love then He may not answer your prayers. He listens to your HEART, and if it is genuine, He knows and acts accordingly, if not, He still acts accordingly.
X: ”I’m not sure why anyone would think that the universe could only be caused if a God exists. The vastness and mysteriousness of the universe is a reason why I DON’T believe in god. Its so vast and mysterious, why the heck would you think god would be anthropomorphic? ”
But it is precisely because of these reasons that I DO believe in God. And more than that, this infinite reality we live in could never have come by itself…..because if there was nothing OUTSIDE to cause it…it would not have been here to cause itself to come into existence. Does that not sound logical? And besides all that, the Universe is full of laws….laws which only a miracle (and God is the only One Who can perform those!) can overcome. And the miracle of the resurrection is one of those times when Physics was overcome. Do you know anyone who can walk through walls? Let alone come out of a tomb 3 days after being killed in one of the most inhumane manners that existed. And don’t forget, the Bible tells us that Lazarus was raised after 4 days!! But ofcourse he died again. Jesus was raised to live forever. But if You don’t accept or believe what the Bible says then that won’t mean anything to you anyway.
As far as the evidence for Gods existence is concerned, it is all around us and up in the Heavens. I saw it as a child, though it took me nearly 20 years to come to know the Creator of it all. I thank God I did!
X: ”why the heck would you think god would be anthropomorphic? ” ”
God is Spirit. But He had to become a man to pay the penalty for the sin of mankind
Tell me X, and I am assuming you are male as you give no name, what would you do to show how much you loved someone? What would be the ultimate price someone would pay to reveal the extent of their love? What would a father on earth do to save his son from, say, a raging fire? Would He not atleast risk his own life to save the boy? And if he knew that by saving his son he would die in the process, would he still do it? If he loved his son…there would be no doubt he would. So how does God show us how much He loves us to save us from a fate worse than death itself? What would be the ultimate price?
baggins, I’m referring to the “idea” that the universe has to be caused, and the fact that christians have this notion that only god explains the creation of the universe. But I don’t buy it.
If it were as simple as saying “oh, now I believe,” I would have years ago. I can’t believe because it doesn’t make sense, logically or emotionally.
Maz, I’m done asking. When it is written that “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened,” and then when you do and it isn’t true, you tend to not believe it. Which is exactly why when you talk about people being resurrected, it sounds like crazy people talk.
Exactly! The amazing thing is, once you look at the claims with the right frame of mind, you’ll find that they couldn’t possibly be false.
Answer: In other words I should be preconditioned to believe something is true BEFORE I research it to see if it is. That’s what happened to you but it won’t happen to me.
God granted me life. I just had to realize that without God I wouldn’t exist at all, so I am preparing myself and serving.
Answer: There are naturalistic explanations that prove that no God is necessary to explain the existence of anything. So you’ve realized nothing.
Without God there are no consequences, but with God you’ll realize that your decisions are important. It comes down to meaning in my eyes. What’s the point in living an accidental life in a meaningless universe? None of my choices would mean anything in such a world, so why bother with decision-making? A tree may as well fall on me right now and crush me, if that’s what existence is.
Answer: There are consequences to all of our choices and actions. The fact that life really has no inherent meaning means that each person can define the purpose and meaning of their own life. It’s true a tree could fall on you tomorrow and you will have wasted your life on a delusion.
Have you seen someone who was afraid? They usually close their eyes and hope that the source of their fear ceases to exist. People who choose not want to walk the straight and narrow close their eyes to their sin and to the punishment of sin. But do not fear, Jesus will forgive your crimes of thought and deed if only you will own up… It is your life, live as you see fit. My recommendation is that you pursue perfection, as Jesus did, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Answer: One of the most destructive teachings of Christianity is that to think certain things or to question the validity of Christianity is sinful. Jesus is the thought police according to you.
You still haven’t answered the question about your beliefs. You know, Dudley went to a Christian College too…and he claimed to know koine greek.
Answer: I’m not surprised. A lot of unbelievers know Koine Greek but almost no Christians and very few Christian pastors can read it. Usually learning Koine Greek leads to infidelity when a person realizes like Bart Ehrman did that the Bible doesn’t really say what the English translations imply that it does.
Because it is a rebellion to God and it is dangerous for humanity.
Atheism is not a rebellion against God. One cannot rebel against something they don’t think exists.
This isn’t a popularity contest, nor do I depend upon what is popular, as you seem to… If you garnered the support of everyone here it would make no difference about what is true and right, so it would make no difference to me (except that I’d be sad that so many people could be wrong).
Answer: The majority of the people in the world and on this blog know that you are wrong and have the facts to prove it.
I cannot convince anyone, only God working through me (or someone/something else) has a chance. But your life is in your control, and God wouldn’t take that away from you. You don’t seem to understand that that’s what hell is…you in control of your life instead of God.
Answer: According to the Bible hell is a physical place on the south side of Jerusalem. I’ve been there. Not scary.
My beliefs are not ridiculous in the least. But you are right…I desire most to serve God. Anything less would be pointless.
Answer: Well to me trying to serve a God for which there isn’t any evidence, and as far as anyone knows doesn’t even want to be served or even acknowledged would be an bout as pointless as anything could be.
They are wrong for avoiding the correct answer, even if they are otherwise intelligent.
Answer: People don’t avoid the correct answer when it comes to this subject. Almost everyone wants to know whether there is a God or not.
Who controls me, but God (or myself when I err)? And I don’t try to control the masses, but I believe that people should act right. I would only consider force to protect others (as police officers are supposed to do).
Answer: People don’t need to be religious or believe in God to act right. They need proper teaching from their parents and teachers about consequences and acceptable behavior so as adults they can make good life decisions.
The Moabites? Hannah went to God’s altar, not the Temple? I’m not sure if the men traveling with Paul experienced anything, why does that concern you?
Answer: I knew you would duck these discrepancies in the text of the Bible. Fundamentalists are almost always unprepared to defend the conflicts, mistakes and discrepancies in the Bible because their leaders have convinced them that no such problems could possible exist in the text. But they do and in great numbers and on almost every page.
You didn’t seem to accomplish anything just now, I guess your derriere is still kicked.
Answer: Until you can explain all the discrepancies in the text I pointed out the Bible stands debunked and kicked very hard by me.
I can’t see any meaning without God, only pointless, short-term illusions. What about you?
Answer: That’s pathetic. My life is meaningful to me and my family and friends and that’s what is important.
If I have false beliefs then I erase them. I have changed radically over the short time that I’ve taken God seriously. I was raised a Christian, but I didn’t really understand what that meant until I got out on my own. Now I’m serving/preparing myself to serve. Physical fitness, mental acuity, moral obedience… My lifestyle is becoming more minimalistic, less wasteful, less dependent upon technology and the modern infrastructure, and more
Answer: Let me just comment on the Bible’s view of physical fitness. The Bible is also full of some very bad advice which has been rewritten to make it seem like this bad advice was never even part of the Bible. In 1Tim 4:8 the KJV tells readers that exercise if of little profit especially compared to religion or godliness. Notice how the NKJV adds the indefinite article “a” to make it seem like the author is saying that exercise is of at least some value. Then in the NIV we actually see the word “some” replace the word “little” in the text completely distorting what the original Greek and the KJV really said which is that physical exercise is basically worthless.
h gar swmatikh gumnasia proj oligon estin wfelimoj, h de eusebeia proj panta wfelimoj estin epaggelian exousa swhj thj nun kai thj melloushj.
(1Timothy 4:8 UBS Fourth Edition Greek New Testament.
For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that is, and that of which is to come (1Timothy 4:8 KJV).
For bodily exercise profits a little: but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and that of which is to come (1Timothy 4:8 NKJV).
For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come (1Timothy 4:8 NIV)
The Bible has been undergoing revisionism ever since the various books in it were collected and voted on to be the written basis for the Christian religion. It’s quite an interesting fact that the supposed unchangeable Word of God keeps having to changed and revised by human beings.
X: ”why the heck would you think god would be anthropomorphic? ” ”
Answer: Uh, because the Bible says man is created in the image of God. Do fundies ever actually READ the Bible or do they just believe what their leaders tell them to believe about it like mherman does?
X, if it is meant to be, then it shall happen. There is no same, right way for everyone everywhere, all the time. We must all experience the Divine in our own ways, and if, for whatever reasons we never seem to have any experiences with the Divine, then perhaps THAT was intended as well.
I would not like to think that a benevolent Divine Power would harshly punish someone who was skeptical unto death due to a lack of personal convincing events while alive. Just try being…the best person that you can be, be upright, just, honest and kind to all others in life, to the best of your abilities and no one who is worth a darn, in this world or the next can ever hold anything against you, and if when you finally die and pass on into the next world, you will learn more. If by chance you simply die and rot…food for worms, beetles, and plants, and nothing more ever comes of your existence, then at least your acts and attitude helped to make this world a better place for a little while. And that’s something that anyone could be proud of[smile].
Just wait and see what happens.
As long as your alive you still have opportunity to experience the mysterium tremendelum.
X: #81. That’s your decision. But why not go to a good lively Church where the Bible is preached and the worship is up to date….maybe something will help you see with your heart rather than your brain.
Bernie: ”Answer: In other words I should be preconditioned to believe something is true BEFORE I research it to see if it is. That’s what happened to you but it won’t happen to me. ”
As John and I said before, your attitude doesn’t help much!
”Answer: There are consequences to all of our choices and actions. The fact that life really has no inherent meaning means that each person can define the purpose and meaning of their own life. It’s true a tree could fall on you tomorrow and you will have wasted your life on a delusion. ”
To your first sentence….absolutely! And what you decide today has a consequence. If life has no meaning, then what on earth are we doing here? Why do we bother doing what is right? Why do we bother with laws atall. No body has any value. We are all accidents going somewhere to happen!
”Answer: That’s pathetic. My life is meaningful to me and my family and friends and that’s what is important.”
Oh?……so what happened to ”
life really has no inherent meaning” …?
”
It’s quite an interesting fact that the supposed unchangeable Word of God keeps having to changed and revised by human beings.”
Gods Word IS unchangeable…..it’s what man does to it that changes it. And I don’t understand why we need so many ”modern” versions in the first place! Some of them are atrocious!
Bernie: ”Do fundies ever actually READ the Bible or do they just believe what their leaders tell them to believe about it like mherman does?”
How can we be ”fundies” as you so nicely put it if we don’t read it? I certainly have read it over and over again. What is sad, is that there is just not enough real Bible teaching in the Church. I went to one Church where we had Luke’s gospel for nearly 6 years…with a splattering of other verses inbetween!! And so much doctrine just isn’t taught, mostly because they say it is ”too controversial”.
So what? Christians need to learn the whole Bible to be able to answer people like you Bernie.
John: Pretty good advice. And I would add, that if X really wanted to know the Lord, He WILL reveal Himself to him, sooner or later, but it takes faith. Sorry X there is no easy way! But it is worth it in the end, trust me. God loves you more than you could ever know, so He of all ‘people’ wants you to know the truth that will set you free.
God loves you more than you could ever know, and he’ll torture you with unimaginable violence forever and ever if you don’t believe that. That hardly fits the human definition of love. ROFL!
Post 88′
What’s this?
Maz has agreed with me AGAIN?!?
And twice within the same week?!?!?
I’ll have to make this upon my calendar! Again!
I wonder if Satan is starting to shiver from the cold yet[grin]?
Oh BEERNIE!! NO NO NO! Why aren’t you LISTENING! HE SUFFERED AND DIED SO YOU WOULDN’T HAVE TO GO THERE!! Can’t you see that!???? How many more times do we have to tell you!
Sorry BERNIE, too many EEE’s!!
John: As someone once said (to someone else)…you aren’t far from the Kingdom of God.
Yes, isn’t that curious[smile]?
(SMILE)
How many more times do we have to tell you!
Answer: Other people telling me about God isn’t going to convince me of anything especially since I already know you people don’t have a clue. If God wants me to believe in him he can tell me. But I already know also that the Christian God does not exist. That is a fact and that fact isn’t going to change. Nothing will ever make any of the stories in the Bible true.
Bernie: You are right for once! No amount of telling you (and God happens to use people who are His witnesses) is going to convince you that God loves you enough to leave Heaven and come and die a horrible death in the form of His Son Jesus Christ, to save you from the hell you keep blaming Him for!! I leave you in Gods hands.
Maz, you mean well but everything you say is driving Bernie (and X) further and further from Christ. There are people in this world that respond to your brand of “evangelism”, but there a whole lot more of them that are repelled by it. Certainly the fear of hell is not what brought me to Christ (since I didn’t believe in it), and I believe in Him in spite of Christian teaching on damnation not because of it. I mean, who would choose to believe in a God just to avoid some far off punishment? It may work on children (although I think it is a manipulative and ultimately damaging form of evangelism to scare children into faith) but it will NOT work on thinking adults. Do you pay any attention to the way that Christ evangelized?
Kash: It wouldn’t matter what I said or how I said it, Bernie is totally against God and anything to do with Him. There are times when talking plain and straight are the only way. And how is it that he has not responded to your way of witnessing then? And how you came to Christ is not always the way anyone else comes to Christ. And I would NEVER scare children with stories of hell.
I think you have a bent towards picking out whatever you can from my posts to admonish me in some way. I guess I am not the only one to judge another eh?
And the problem with ”thinking adults” is that they think too much.
So how did Christ evangelise? He spoke the truth.
Kash: How about what Jesus said to the pharisees in Matthew 23? Verse 15 is quite hefty! ”Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves!”
And what about Matthew 5 v 22, ”But I say to you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire!”
Jesus spoke more descriptively about hell than He did about Heaven, I think He was trying to get some truth over don’t you?
Christ told people to love God more than anything else, including the law. Including the Bible. And to love other people in God’s name. To love anything else is to love something that will perish, including to love a particular way of interpreting the Bible. God and people are more important even than scripture. Scripture is to help people love God and love others, and where it interferes with that one must see the limitation of human understanding of scipture NOT the limitation of the love of God. That is the truth, the truth is love. And God gave us our brains and expects us to use them. If your interpretation of scripture depends on not thinking too much, you are not using your gifts from God to their full potential. And I don’t think Bernie is “against God”, he just hasn’t met God yet. How can he be against someone he has never met? He is against your interpretation of the Bible, and that is NOT the same thing as being against God, because you do not perfectly represent God no matter how righteous you are. “And how is it that he has not responded to your way of witnessing then?” Now, now, you don’t mean this. You don’t really count the quality of a witness by the quantity of professions, do you? And by the way, when the “non believers” on this site DO respond positively to what I say, you accuse me of wrong thinking since they agree with me. So in your eyes I am damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.
“Jesus spoke more descriptively about hell than He did about Heaven, I think He was trying to get some truth over don’t you?” Yeah, and His message to the pharisees was that their view of scripture (legalism) was Hell.
And in Matthew 5 His message is that hatred and anger between people leads to Hell, not only in the eternal, but here on earth.
Kash: It is obvious that you have entirely different ways of looking at things than I do, from Bernie, to the Bible, to the way you witness to people.
(
One does wonder why.)
And I didn’t say thinking was wrong…. ofcourse I think about what the Bible is saying and I expect the Holy Spirit to guide me in it’s truth.
You tend to see more in what I say than what I have actually said……you did this on another thread.
And if Bernie is not against God, then he certainly fooled me!
Kash: #103. You sound pretty angry at me right at the moment. Mmmm?
Kash: I’m breaking from this argument and having a curry now.
No, Maz, I am not angry at you in the least. I think we all read into other’s posts. And I did not know that we were arguing, I thought we were discussing.
Maz, why did you think 103 had anything to do specifically with you? I was just giving my interpretation of the verse you referenced to me in #100.
Kash: #107.You come over sometimes as forceful as you accuse me of, it just seems funny to me.
#108. Because that is the way you seem to come across in your comments.
And I’d just like to say, that I don’t witness like this to people usually, I always try to show people how much God loves them, (and I’v said it often enough on here) but with Bernie, it is difficult not to get exasperated at his lack of comprehension and his attitude to me and to God in particular. I am not perfect, but I witness out of a passion for souls and for God.
Kash: #107. ” I think we all read into other’s posts. ”
I think this very well true. Perhaps you read the wrong tone in my comments, particularly to Bernie. There is more pleading than shouting, because I really…… really …..want him to understand that God doesn’t hate him and want him to go to hell, but HE LOVES….SO LOVES (feel my heart) Bernie, that He sent His Son to die in his place. This is what I try so hard to get over. It all comes from my heart.
So perhaps (like John does) we should put more stage direction and feeling in brackets to let people know where we are actually coming from. (Little smile).
hey bernie, all the “atheism is a religion” mumbo jumbo got you off topic. Please read my post 37 and respond. I am interested in your position on the historicity of Paul, since if you acknowledge Paul’s existence (even if you don’t credit all of the Pauline epistles to him) it makes it harder to deny that Jesus existed.
Kash,
I think the figure of Paul as described in Acts of the Apostles is definitely a fictional character and that entire book is a fantasy. I think the epistles are all forgeries created by the church. So, no I don’t the Apostle Paul is a historical person at all nor are any of the people mentioned in the epistles. In other words I doubt that these epistles are actual letters that were originally read to the congregations they are supposedly written to. I think it is much more likely that they are frauds created and then “discovered” by the early church fathers. They were presented as historical artifacts to establish some kind of historical basis and background for the church and possibly to corroborate well-known stories about the church’s beginnings.
Outside of the Bible what exactly do we know about the Apostle Paul? The answer is nothing. Same with Peter and the rest of the apostles. Christianity evolved from other older religions the same way all religions have in the past. Even Augustine was aware of this:
“The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian.” – St. Augustine, Retractiones
First of all, that quote by Augustine is a slick attempt to make him say something he did not. What he meant was that all true religion – even before Christ was resurrected – was Christian. Paul argues much the same thing in Romans, that Judaism was really just part one of Christianity. Second of all, if the epistles were frauds perpetrated by the church fathers, wouldn’t they more clearly spell out the creeds of the church fathers? Wouldn’t at least the trinity be mentioned? Wouldn’t the letters invoke the virgin birth and other doctrines that quickly became part of the Catholic Church when it became powerful? And what about the evidence that there were CHristian communities in Galatia, Rome, Thessalonica, etc in the first century AD (before the time of the Church fathers?) What about the fact that Paul is mentioned separately in letters of Peter AND in Acts, not to mention the Pauline epistles? What about the similarity in tone and style in the epistles generally accepted as authored by Paul? Who is it that you think was clever enough to perpetrate such a fraud, and when do you think they were written? How do you explain the communities of Christians before that, if Paul never embarked upon the missionary journeys that brought Christianity to Ephesus and beyond? You do realize that many of the figures we study in history have far fewer written corroborations than those of Paul and Peter. You are suspicious of Jesus, Paul, and Peter because of the religious nature of the history. But much that was written about other historical figures, including the Roman caesars, was just as influenced by the high regard in which they were held (divine, even) yet you do not doubt their existence, just the accuracy of the portraits left behind.
Kash,
First of all, that quote by Augustine is a slick attempt to make him say something he did not. What he meant was that all true religion – even before Christ was resurrected – was Christian.
Answer: No, Augustine specifically said even before Christ came in the flesh. Did you overlook that?
Paul argues much the same thing in Romans, that Judaism was really just part one of Christianity.
Answer: Well it really isn’t. Jewish writers tell us nothing about early Christianity, Jesus or his disciples, Christians in first century Palestine who were Jewish, the Apostle Paul or anything that could corroborate anything the New Testament says.
Second of all, if the epistles were frauds perpetrated by the church fathers, wouldn’t they more clearly spell out the creeds of the church fathers?
Answer: I would say the creeds you’re thinking of are all later inventions. Name one or two.
Wouldn’t at least the trinity be mentioned?
Answer: No, the trinity is a late invention. And an idiotic one.
Wouldn’t the letters invoke the virgin birth and other doctrines that quickly became part of the Catholic Church when it became powerful?
Answer: Even the first versions of the gospels didn’t mention the Virgin Birth. Doctrines, like the doctrine of the deity of Christ, started to formulate in the third and fourth centuries.
And what about the evidence that there were CHristian communities in Galatia, Rome, Thessalonica, etc in the first century AD (before the time of the Church fathers?) What about the fact that Paul is mentioned separately in letters of Peter AND in Acts, not to mention the Pauline epistles?
Answer: These sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Each relies on the other for coherence yet simultaneously requires an arbitrary selection of “fact” from the wealth of patent nonsense. Paul’s supposed journeys have more symbolism than realism. No scholars think that the exquisite Greek of the epistles of Peter were written by a disciple of Jesus, a supposed fisherman who would have no doubt tortured his own language.
What about the similarity in tone and style in the epistles generally accepted as authored by Paul?
Answer: The same person probably wrote them, and evangelist themselves. But what about all the epistles that scholars believe were likely written by someone other than Paul? Don’t those argue that perhaps none of the epistles are actually authentic?
Who is it that you think was clever enough to perpetrate such a fraud, and when do you think they were written?
Answer: The “authentic voice” within the epistles is that of an authoritarian churchman. His call to “follow traditions” and “obey written rules” is clearly anachronistic and moves the epistles into a later age than purported for a 1st century apostle. – Kenneth Humphries
How do you explain the communities of Christians before that, if Paul never embarked upon the missionary journeys that brought Christianity to Ephesus and beyond?
Answer: None of the early Christian churches in the major cities of the Roman world owed anything to a pioneering apostle called Paul.
You do realize that many of the figures we study in history have far fewer written corroborations than those of Paul and Peter. You are suspicious of Jesus, Paul, and Peter because of the religious nature of the history.
Answer: We have no mentions of Jesus, Peter or Paul by even one contemporary historian or writer. All we have is the Bible to go on. That’s just not good enough given the supernatural nonsense and outrageous claims the Bible makes.
But much that was written about other historical figures, including the Roman caesars, was just as influenced by the high regard in which they were held (divine, even) yet you do not doubt their existence, just the accuracy of the portraits left behind.
Answer: Right, exactly, we have real portraits and sculptures of them, unlike any of the major figures in the Bible. We have the Caesar’s own words, the words of their contemporaries describing them, records of their accomplishments and unlike the figures in the Bible we know what they looked like.
“The “authentic voice” within the epistles is that of an authoritarian churchman.” Except that the letters were in circulation long before there was an “authoritarian churchman”.
“We have the Caesar’s own words, the words of their contemporaries describing them, records of their accomplishments and unlike the figures in the Bible we know what they looked like.” Because they were royalty. And we DO have words of contemporaries describing Jesus, you just don’t beleive they exist.
“Paul’s supposed journeys have more symbolism than realism.” Then why were there real communities of Christians in the areas he journeyed to? If not Paul, SOMEONE was spreading the word of Christ, someone who really believed Christ had existed. And to say it wasn’t Paul but some miscellaneous figure has no historical evidence and is simply conjecture.
“All we have is the Bible to go on.” No, we have historical documents that were later collected into the New Testament. When they were written, they weren’t yet “the Bible”.
Your theory means that someone like Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch would have had these forgeries done, but these church fathers refer to the letters of Paul in their own writings. And they write of the communities founded by Paul and the other Apostles. At best you can maintain that the early church fathers modified the letters to make them fit their own developing theology (though this is still just speculation).
In other words, you can reasonably doubt the details of the gospels (such as the miracles and birth stories) but it is a huge stretch to doubt the very existence of Jesus, Paul, and Peter, and requires baseless conjecture at least equal to what you accuse the gospel writers of .
BTW, Bernie, if Jesus, Paul, and Peter never existed, what was Christianity based on and when did it start?
Bernie: “Jewish writers tell us nothing about early Christianity, Jesus or his disciples, Christians in first century Palestine who were Jewish, the Apostle Paul or anything that could corroborate anything the New Testament says.” The Talmud makes note of Jesus’ miracles, although not mentioning Jesus by name, later rabbis agree they are speaking of Jesus. Also His crucifixion is dated as “on the eve of the Feast of the Passover” in agreement with the Gospel (Luke 22:1ff; John 19:31ff). By the beginning of the 2nd century, Romans were writing about Christians and Jesus. Pliny the Younger, proconsul in Asia Minor, in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter:
…it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food… [Pliny, Epistle 97]
Also it is interesting to compare this passage with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.
Next the Roman historian, Tacitus, who is respected by modern scholars for historical accuracy, wrote in 115 A.D. about Christ and His Church:
The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea…but throughout the city of Rome also… [Tacitus, Annals, XV 44]
Perhaps the reason earlier Roman contemporaries did not write about it was that they believed the the “superstition” had been “checked” and did not need mention, only to be later proved wrong?
“The “authentic voice” within the epistles is that of an authoritarian churchman.” Except that the letters were in circulation long before there was an “authoritarian churchman”.
Answer: When do you think these letters were in circulation? If authoritarian churchmen mentioned them they certainly could have written them in someone else’s name. In those days writing in a teacher’s name was a way of honoring that teacher. What we consider forgery today was a widely accepted and even expected practice among the ancients during the time period we are discussing.
“We have the Caesar’s own words, the words of their contemporaries describing them, records of their accomplishments and unlike the figures in the Bible we know what they looked like.” Because they were royalty. And we DO have words of contemporaries describing Jesus, you just don’t beleive they exist.
Answer: There are no honest scholars who claim we have any eyewitness accounts in the Bible. No one knows who wrote the gospels or any of the epistles. Who is John of Patmos?
“Paul’s supposed journeys have more symbolism than realism.” Then why were there real communities of Christians in the areas he journeyed to? If not Paul, SOMEONE was spreading the word of Christ, someone who really believed Christ had existed. And to say it wasn’t Paul but some miscellaneous figure has no historical evidence and is simply conjecture.
Answer: You’ve been misled as to how Christianity came to be. Early pagans knew where the early Christian sects came from and wrote about it. Unfortunately most of this literature was burned by angry Christians along with the people who wrote it.
No, we have historical documents that were later collected into the New Testament. When they were written, they weren’t yet “the Bible”.
Answer: The gospels are definitely NOT historical narratives. They are written like fiction and contain all the elements of fiction writing and none of history writing. What historical narrative contains dialog, people speaking in complete sentences? That’s fiction, not history.
Your theory means that someone like Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch would have had these forgeries done, but these church fathers refer to the letters of Paul in their own writings. And they write of the communities founded by Paul and the other Apostles. At best you can maintain that the early church fathers modified the letters to make them fit their own developing theology (though this is still just speculation).
In other words, you can reasonably doubt the details of the gospels (such as the miracles and birth stories) but it is a huge stretch to doubt the very existence of Jesus, Paul, and Peter, and requires baseless conjecture at least equal to what you accuse the gospel writers of .
Answer: Both the birth and death of Jesus are announced by angels. I don’t believe in angels. Jesus has a conversation with Satan. I don’t believe in Satan and if you do you are NOT monotheistic. Jesus thought demons caused epilepsy and supposedly cast out demons to cure diseases. I don’t believe in demons or that diseases have other than natural causes. I don’t believe in the Virgin Birth either. So the Jesus of the gospels could not have existed as far as I’m concerned. I have done the research to see if there is any chance that these stories are still based on a historical figure. They aren’t.
BTW, Bernie, if Jesus, Paul, and Peter never existed, what was Christianity based on and when did it start?
Answer: Dozens of competing Jesus/sun god mystery cults evolved from other older mystery religions.
The Talmud makes note of Jesus’ miracles, although not mentioning Jesus by name, later rabbis agree they are speaking of Jesus. Also His crucifixion is dated as “on the eve of the Feast of the Passover” in agreement with the Gospel (Luke 22:1ff; John 19:31ff). By the beginning of the 2nd century, Romans were writing about Christians and Jesus. Pliny the Younger, proconsul in Asia Minor, in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter:
Answer: According to Christian apologists rabbis do a lot of things they really don’t. The figure in the Talmud was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier according to rabbis. Also five of his disciples are mentioned by name none of who match up with any of the Greek named disciples in the gospels. The name Jesus was quite common during that period. But the fact is the Talmud is not a reliable historical document, it’s a bunch of religious nonsense. I’m very familiar with it.
…it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food… [Pliny, Epistle 97]
Answer: There is no mention of Jesus Christ the person in this passage which by the way is widely accepted as an interpolation by Christian scholars and called what it is by the rest: a pious forgery.
Also it is interesting to compare this passage with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.
Answer: Yes it is and we can safely assume that the passage in Acts is where it came from.
Next the Roman historian, Tacitus, who is respected by modern scholars for historical accuracy, wrote in 115 A.D. about Christ and His Church:
The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea…but throughout the city of Rome also… [Tacitus, Annals, XV 44]
Answer: Actually this forgery didn’t actually appear until about the fifteenth century and exists on the only copy we have, which was also copied in the fifteenth century. It was discovered to be a fake using ultra violet light. You can check this out on the Internet.
Perhaps the reason earlier Roman contemporaries did not write about it was that they believed the the “superstition” had been “checked” and did not need mention, only to be later proved wrong?
Answer: No, there are too many mentions of large crowds following Jesus, Jesus going to too many places being seen by and feeding too many people, too many healings and miraculous events mentioned in the gospels for all of them and the people involved to go completely unnoticed by historians or anyone else who could write. I’m convinced that the New Testament is not a historical record of anything and that is was never meant to be understood that way.
“Unfortunately most of this literature was burned by angry Christians along with the people who wrote it.” Then how do you know about it? And what is it that these early pagans knew?
“Yes it is and we can safely assume that the passage in Acts is where it came from.” Safely assume? You assume much when it goes against the existence of Jesus or Paul, but will not let those who think Jesus and Paul actually existed in some form assume anything.
“Dozens of competing Jesus/sun god mystery cults evolved from other older mystery religions.” You overstate how many older religions resemble Jesus in any way, and the fact that these died out would seem to indicate that perhaps the one that survived (Jesus as represented in the gospels) had a more concrete foundation.
Bernie: It is NOT universally accepted that the Tacitus in question is a forgery. It is accepted by those who deny the existence of Jesus, and therefore any extra-Biblical mention of Christians, as a forgery. Do you then deny that Nero persecuted Christians? Just curious.
“So the Jesus of the gospels could not have existed as far as I’m concerned.” But you are also denying that an itinerant Jewish preacher could have existed and been crucified, after whose death these “myths” grew up around him.
“What historical narrative contains dialog, people speaking in complete sentences? That’s fiction, not history.” You are viewing “historical narrative” through the eyes of modernity. It was common in the era before historical scholarship to tell the narrative of a person or a tribe through stories. And I am not claiming that the gospels are historical narratives as we think of them today, but I do think they are based on a real individual who really told parables, and real events such as his crucifiction and resurrection.
BTW, I have a copy of Josephus and it contains dialog and people speaking in complete sentences.
Bernie: “When do you think these letters were in circulation?” Clement of Rome, in his letter to the church at Corinth around 96 AD, mentions the epistles of Paul to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians. He includes numerous phrases from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and possible material from Acts, James, and I Peter. He asks his readers in several places to “remember” the words of Jesus. Or do you not believe that Clement existed, either?
And finally (for tonight, at least) the ultraviolet light study of Tacitus annals was only to decide whether “Christianos” in the older version had originally been “Chrestianos” as it was in the more recent copy. It did not prove that the passage in question was a “forgery”.
“Unfortunately most of this literature was burned by angry Christians along with the people who wrote it.” Then how do you know about it?
Answer: Because people like Origen copied large portions of Pagan literature and then answered it.
And what is it that these early pagans knew?
Enough to make the Church father Tertullian write of the Devil’s diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras: “The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be divine.”
Safely assume? You assume much when it goes against the existence of Jesus or Paul, but will not let those who think Jesus and Paul actually existed in some form assume anything.
Your assumptions are based on faith, mine on evidence.
You overstate how many older religions resemble Jesus in any way, and the fact that these died out would seem to indicate that perhaps the one that survived (Jesus as represented in the gospels) had a more concrete foundation.
Answer: I’m not talking about older religions but all the early diverse and competing Christian/sun god cults that eventually were all merged for political purposes.
Bernie: It is NOT universally accepted that the Tacitus in question is a forgery. It is accepted by those who deny the existence of Jesus, and therefore any extra-Biblical mention of Christians, as a forgery. Do you then deny that Nero persecuted Christians? Just curious.
Answer: Definitely. Nero did NOT persecute Christians. Google: A Heathen’s Day: Persecution Myths by Hrafnkell Haraldsson and you’ll see what Christian apologists claim as evidence for this supposed event.
You are viewing “historical narrative” through the eyes of modernity. It was common in the era before historical scholarship to tell the narrative of a person or a tribe through stories. And I am not claiming that the gospels are historical narratives as we think of them today, but I do think they are based on a real individual who really told parables, and real events such as his crucifiction and resurrection.
Answer: No there are no ancient historical narratives written the way the gospels are. For example the greetings in the beginnings of Luke and Acts display the authors familiarity with the complex Hellenistic art of introducing a fictive narrative. The literary elegance of these stories reflects the mode in which Hellenistic fiction was written.
BTW, I have a copy of Josephus and it contains dialog and people speaking in complete sentences.
Where exactly? “We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.” – Jim Walker
Bernie: “I’m not talking about older religions but all the early diverse and competing Christian/sun god cults that eventually were all merged for political purposes.” and “Your assumptions are based on faith, mine on evidence.” Where is your evidence of the first sentence? All I see is your revisionist reading of history to fit your thesis that Jesus and Paul never existed in any form.
I’m at work now and my copy of Josephus is at home but in several places thumbing through last night I saw where he has actual words in people’s mouths in quotes. And again, the fact that the gospels are not historical narratives in the modern sense of a biography of say, FDR, does not prove that Jesus never existed. And you still haven’t given any good evidence to explain how Paul was “created”, by whom, and when. AND you haven’t answered the question of what early (before the end of the first century) church “authority” figure made up the source material for the gospels. Also, was it the same person that “forged” the letters of Paul? Did the same person forge all the letters, or just the ones most scholars now attribute to Paul? If not all of them, who wrote the others? If it was the same person who “made up” the source material for the gospels, why is it rather obvious that whoever wrote the epistles of Paul had not read the gospels, (or at least only doesn’t refer to them and doesn’t seem to think the biographical details of Jesus are important) since Paul maintains his knowledge of Jesus is from direct revelation NOT from talking to the Apostles (whom you apparently don’t think exist OR are the ones making up the story, even though you also maintain they were too uneducated to write any epistles. You can’t have it both ways!)
Bernie: Back from your earlier post: “No, Augustine specifically said even before Christ came in the flesh. Did you overlook that?” YOu missed my point. Both Paul in Romans and the gospel of John speak of Christ existing even before he came in the flesh, and thus to worship God was to worship Christ even before Christ came “in the flesh”.
Bernie post 126,
With all that is mentioned about such characters by various people, would it be foolish to at least believe in the possibility that people such as Jesus, or Hercules, existed? That behind all of the legend there may have been some actual truth, the specifics of which may have been…”lost”… in the midst of time?
Kash,
Everything you think you know about Christian origins is revisionist history. Plus you are attempting to define the gospels as history thereby attributing to them a meaning they do not bear. The myth of the kingdom of God has its home in a long tradition of literature.
The entire “Pauline group” is in the same forged class with Hebrews, says Encyclopedia Biblica, after exhaustive consideration of the proofs, internal and external:
“With respect to the canonical Pauline Epistles, … there are none of them by Paul; neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or eight, nor yet even the four so long ‘universally’ regarded as unassailable. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia [false-writings, forgeries];—[it adds, with a typical clerical striving after saving something from the wreckage] this, of course, not implying the least depreciation of their contents. … The group … bears obvious marks of a certain unity—of having originated in one circle, at one time, in one environment; but not of unity of authorship.” (EB. iii, 3625, 3626.) They are thus all uninspired anonymous church forgeries for Christ’s sweet sake! –FORGERIES IN CHRISTIANITY by Joseph Wheless.
When I was in college I read this book FORGERIES IN CHRISTIANITY by Joseph Wheless. Even though I had highly suspected the Bible and Christian history was based on nothing but lies and nonsense I was stunned when I discovered the truth about early Christian history.
I think you should check this book out on the Internet. It ought to be required reading for every believing Christian. The best deconstruction of the stories about Paul the apostle is on Jesusneverexisted.com. Just click on the parts about Paul. When you know what I know, and see what others have seen you’ll have serious doubts about Paul’s existence also. Let me know what you think after you’ve looked these documents over a bit.
Bernie: Another example of possessing a belief or idea and then building on it with as much info as you can from those who agree with you.
I’d like to ask a question that I heard and which is so profound.
”If Jesus is dead (or doesn’t exist at all) Who is that living in my heart?”
You cannot argue against millions of peoples experience of a risen and powerful Christ, the Son of the Living God, living in their lives and changing them from something horrible to something of value.
To try and answer your question by pretending to briefly step into the shoes of a sympathetic Atheist Maz, it could just be an idealistic idea, an OLDE idea, refined over time and empowered by the faith of millions over an ocean of time. This of course in no way would devalue said hypothetical idea. I’m all for the support of whatever “thing” helps to empower people and lift them up to be better people,that inspires great works of art in all mediums, and encourages all of the best qualities in mankind and society.
To get back to myself as a theist, even were I not personally convinced that they existed, I would believe in Divine entities for if nothing else, but one very simple, unscientific, and selfish reason………because I want to, because the very idea of them existing makes this universe a more interesting and self satisfying place for me to exist in[grin].
I don’t think that Bernie will see the value of personal testimonies on this matter in the way that you want him to.
John: In answer to your last line, I was under no impression that he would!
But I think you hit on the key words…’….’because I want to.”
For what ever reason, some people just don’t want to believe there is a God, let alone allow their heart and mind to be open to Him.
From a very small child I had an inner belief in Something ”out there” beyond the Universe, with all that was around me I could not see a Universe existing, and an earth with all it’s fabulous occupants, coming from anything but some kind of Super Being. I regret that it took me over 20 years to get to know the Creator of this wonderful Universe personally, but I never regret giving my life to Him. He has proved Himself to me over and over again…..whatever others may say or believe. All I can say is, to me, He is VERY REAL.
Hi Bernie. THanks for the suggested reading, but for accurate history you are going to have to do better than Joseph Wheless. From http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wheless/wheless_intro.htm Summary
Of 25 citations:
Reference: 2 not given, 18 correct, 2 false, 3 not quite right.
Verbal accuracy: 3 not given, 18 correct, 2 false, 2 not quite right
Fair representation: 1 not available, 6 correct, 14 false, 4 mixed or dubious
For a man intent on documentary proof of fraud, there is a significant level of error at even the basic level of accurate citation. 28% of the references are wrong or unavailable; 28% are inaccurate or can’t be checked; and only 24% of the quotes correctly represent the author’s views! Of course these figures are only a guide. Much real information is included, although heavily slanted. Nevertheless we have seen a significant level of misinformation in Wheless’ account, and in some cases deliberate misrepresentation would seem to be a possibility.
If you are going to argue that the Christian historians are too biased to be trusted, you can not then use anti-Christian historians who are also biased. I do not claim the gospels should be read as history, but I do think that it is VERY unlikely that they are complete fabrications. Also, you still cherry pick references to try and maintain that denial of Paul’s existence is somehow mainstream. This is totally misleading. Higher criticism has produced dicussion among scholars at to which are authentic Pauline epistles and which are pseudepigraphic, but other than a few radical scohlars, few deny that Paul actually existed, actually traveled around, and actually wrote letters.
Romans, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, and 1st Thessalonians are pretty much universally accepted as authentic Pauline letters.
Also, it would be a pretty clever forger who referred to other letters that have been “lost to time” in their forgeries, particularly since you seem to think whoever “created” Christ and Paul wrote the gospels and epistles knowing they were going to be canonized at some point. A first Epistle to Corinth is referenced at 1 Corinthians 5:9, a third Epistle to Corinth called Severe Letter is referenced at 2 Corinthians 2:4 and 2 Corinthians 7:8-9. There is a mention of a Corinthian letter to Paul at 1 Corinthians 7:1 (so according to you, our forger also pretended to GET letters?). Paul refers to an earlier epistle to the Ephesians at Ephesians 3:3-4. Paul refers to an Epistle to the Laodiceans in Colossians 4:16.
Bernie: “Plus you are attempting to define the gospels as history thereby attributing to them a meaning they do not bear.” Oh no. I just think they are based on something that actually happened in history. The gospels most definitely are NOT history, they are theology. Marvelous theology. “The myth of the kingdom of God has its home in a long tradition of literature.” Oh really? As Jesus very originally defined it? Give me a pre- or non-Christian example of this, please.
Bernie: Another example of possessing a belief or idea and then building on it with as much info as you can from those who agree with you.
Answer: Not so. There is a long attempted rebuttal to FORGERIES IN CHRISTIANITY posted on the Internet. I read it very carefully. There is also a supposed rebuttal to the claim that Paul the apostle never existed. The best answer apologists give is that archaeology confirms the existence of some of the places mentioned in the Book of Acts. Of course that not only proves absolutely nothing about Paul it illustrates very clearly that there really isn’t a shred of evidence that Paul ever existed from outside the Bible. The sources apologists use, are the epistles attributed to Paul, those attributed to Peter and Acts. In other words once again we have the Bible proving the Bible is true. That just isn’t good enough for free thinking people.
I’d like to ask a question that I heard and which is so profound.
”If Jesus is dead (or doesn’t exist at all) Who is that living in my heart?”
You cannot argue against millions of peoples experience of a risen and powerful Christ, the Son of the Living God, living in their lives and changing them from something horrible to something of value.
Answer: Yes but I’ve had Muslims ask me “If Allah is dead (or doesn’t exist at all) Who is that living in my heart?” Who is living in their lives and changing them from something horrible to something of value if not Allah? So I cannot accept evidence from you for your God that you would not accept from members of other religions. Sorry, your arguments are no better than those from members of other religions and actually even much less convincing. For example, at least the Koran is not full of scientific inaccuracies like the Bible is. I mean the Koran doesn’t claim the earth is flat and never moves the way the Bible does and in both testaments. Of all the religions I’ve studied Christianity is the most absurd in its doctrines and dogmas not to mention its fairytales.
Maz post 134,
Yes, well, do bear in mind however that I was just speaking for/of myself[smile].
If some wish not to believe in or even believe in the possibility of Divine Entities then that’s their business. Repeat of message within post 84.
Bernie: ”’ Answer: Not so. There is a long attempted rebuttal to FORGERIES IN CHRISTIANITY posted on the Internet. I read it very carefully.”
One wonders if you read anything else.
OOps….didn’t read that right! My mistake!
Bernie: ”Answer: Yes but I’ve had Muslims ask me “If Allah is dead (or doesn’t exist at all) Who is that living in my heart?” ”
The only thing is….Allah can’t live in anyones heart because he was just one of many of Islams false gods. Nowadays they don’t worship these other gods anymore since they became monotheistic and worship only Allah. And Allah is not the God of the Bible.
Hi Bernie. THanks for the suggested reading, but for accurate history you are going to have to do better than Joseph Wheless. From http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/wheless/wheless_intro.htm Summary
Answer: I told you I already read the attempted rebuttal of Wheless’ work. It doesn’t stand up at all. In fact it’s a desperate attempt to discredit Wheless.
If you are going to argue that the Christian historians are too biased to be trusted, you can not then use anti-Christian historians who are also biased. I do not claim the gospels should be read as history, but I do think that it is VERY unlikely that they are complete fabrications.
Answer: You are confusing historians with Bible scholars. No honest historian will write about anything in the Bible simply because history writing is done based on evidence.
Also, you still cherry pick references to try and maintain that denial of Paul’s existence is somehow mainstream. This is totally misleading. Higher criticism has produced dicussion among scholars at to which are authentic Pauline epistles and which are pseudepigraphic, but other than a few radical scohlars, few deny that Paul actually existed, actually traveled around, and actually wrote letters.
Answer: I never implied a denial of Paul’s existence is mainstream. Most of the people interested in Paul are Bible scholars who have taken the existence of Paul and Jesus on faith in the Bible. They are definitely NOT historians basing their ideas on historical facts. Again, most historians aren’t interested in the Bible but most of the ones who are do support my positions.
Romans, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, and 1st Thessalonians are pretty much universally accepted as authentic Pauline letters.
Answer: Universally accepted by Bible scholars. That means exactly nothing. I agree that those epistles all seem to be written by a person using the same vocabulary and writing style in Koine Greek and the same theology. I just don’t think the figure portrayed in the Book of Acts wrote them.
Oh no. I just think they are based on something that actually happened in history. The gospels most definitely are NOT history, they are theology. Marvelous theology.
Answer: My NRSV Study Bible says that while the gospels were literary fiction they were about a historical figure. The professors I had at Muhlenburg said the same thing. For a time I believed that. But once I looked into it for myself I no longer believed it. Once I started reading Gerald Massey I started questioning any historicity of the gospels. That plus a study of Church history convinced me that the Bible and Christianity are complete fabrications.
“The myth of the kingdom of God has its home in a long tradition of literature.” Oh really? As Jesus very originally defined it? Give me a pre- or non-Christian example of this, please.
Answer: The Old Testament. Do you have a copy of ANET?
Bernie: “You are confusing historians with Bible scholars. No honest historian will write about anything in the Bible simply because history writing is done based on evidence.” Well, now you are showing your precondition that makes it impossible to engage in honest debate. Most historians that study first century Palestine are also Bible scholars, because so much of the Biblical material deals with first century Palestine! And most of the Jesus Never Existed crowd are definitely not historians of first century Palestine OR the Bible, so it is an unfair requirement. In other words, you are saying that if a person studies the subject at hand, they are automatically suspect, because any real scholar would never bother to study the subject at hand! It is similar to Ken Humphreys position on all extra-Biblical mentions of Jesus or Christians suc as Tacitus. He discounts any and all of them, because those who believed in Christ had access to them, and thus must have inserted (or forged) them. His proof for this is that forgeries by Christian authorities have been discovered, therefore all mentions of Jesus are forgeries. That is hardly sound logic! By that reasoning, the fact that there have been forgeries of Shakespeare would indicate that all Shakespeare is a forgery!
The only thing is….Allah can’t live in anyones heart because he was just one of many of Islams false gods. Nowadays they don’t worship these other gods anymore since they became monotheistic and worship only Allah. And Allah is not the God of the Bible.
Answer: First of all your answer would be countered by a Muslim by saying Jesus can’t live in anyone’s heart because he’s a false god. Obviously you’ve never studied Islam. Few people have. But I had a class called Islamic Traditions in college that was a real eye opener. Islam evolved from moon worshipping cults in Arabia. It wasn’t founded by a prophet named Muhammad. Muhammad never existed. Once I studied the evolution of these moon-worshipping cults and became familiar with the true nature of ancient religions it became apparent after further study that Christianity had actually evolved from sun worshipping cults. The crown of thorns, all the symbolism in the gospels at once and finally made sense to me.
Bernie: “I just don’t think the figure portrayed in the Book of Acts wrote them.” But you have yet to supply any sort of reasonable theory of who DID write them, and when, since they are referred to by early church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome.
“That plus a study of Church history convinced me that the Bible and Christianity are complete fabrications.” Except that near as I can tell, your only exposure to the history of the church is books trying to prove the church made everything up.
I wrote: “Give me a pre- or non-Christian example of this, please.” You wrote: “Answer: The Old Testament. Do you have a copy of ANET?” This is hardly a non Christian example, since Christians believe that Christ fulfilled and built upon the foundation laid down in the Old Testament. You made claims that the “Jesus myth” was based on pagan sun gods or some such. I think you overstate the similarities, particularly when you look at the whole of the gospels rather than just the birth narratives. I do not know what you are referring to as “ANET”.
Bernie: “Most of the people interested in Paul are Bible scholars who have taken the existence of Paul and Jesus on faith in the Bible. They are definitely NOT historians basing their ideas on historical facts. Again, most historians aren’t interested in the Bible but most of the ones who are do support my positions.” Again, you frame your conditions for your case similarly to Ken Humphreys, that is to say, you automatically discount anyone who studies Paul unless they are studying Paul to debunk him. Those in the latter category also aren’t interested in historical facts, but only selectively applying a very rigid criteria of proof. You are probably familiar with the way JP Holding showed that if we used the same criteria Ken Humphreys requires for proof of Jesus, we would have to say that the rabbi sage Gamaliel didn’t exist, since Josephus never mentions him and he is only described in length in the Talmud. But then, perhaps you also don’t believe Gamaliel existed? After all, he is mentioned in Acts, so he MUST be a figment of 3rd century church conspiracy (wry smile).
Ahh, you mean Ancient Near Eastern Texts. No, I do not have a copy. But I am familiar with it. Very interesting the obvious influence Mesopotamian origin myths had on the early chapter of Genesis. What specifically were you referring to in the current context?
Most historians that study first century Palestine are also Bible scholars, because so much of the Biblical material deals with first century Palestine! And most of the Jesus Never Existed crowd are definitely not historians of first century Palestine OR the Bible, so it is an unfair requirement.
Answer: Yes some Bible scholars are historians and one is both plus a respected archaeologist, Thomas Thompson. He wrote The Messiah Myth – The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Mythic Past – Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. Not only does he claim Jesus and David never existed he also supports my position that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah described in the Bible and all of their kings, temples, armies, prophets, vast populations, their god and Asherah his wife and everything else never existed either.
In other words, you are saying that if a person studies the subject at hand, they are automatically suspect, because any real scholar would never bother to study the subject at hand!
Answer: No. I have a minor in religion from a conservative Christian college. That’s several giant steps and then a few more from being a scholar but disproves your claim. While I question myself all the time, I don’t suspect myself of intellectual dishonesty.
It is similar to Ken Humphreys position on all extra-Biblical mentions of Jesus or Christians suc as Tacitus. He discounts any and all of them, because those who believed in Christ had access to them, and thus must have inserted (or forged) them. His proof for this is that forgeries by Christian authorities have been discovered, therefore all mentions of Jesus are forgeries. That is hardly sound logic!
Answer: Christian scholars such as Tom Harpur actually give the evidence that these works by Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus and Suetonius are in fact later interpolations. But as he points out even if they aren’t they’re hardly evidence of “the best attested event in history.”
By that reasoning, the fact that there have been forgeries of Shakespeare would indicate that all Shakespeare is a forgery!
Answer: My English professor claimed Shakespeare never existed, that a bunch of different people wrote these plays. She demonstrated the different writing styles and showed how other scholars had arrived at the same conclusion. I really think Shakespeare was like a modern day Broadway producer who produced other people’s stuff. Or perhaps no such person ever existed. Who knows?
Bernie, you do realize that since Jesus was a “teacher”, it is entirely fitting that the only people that originally wrote about him were his “followers”. Isn’t the same true of Socrates? Or do you think that Plato invented Socrates, with the collusion of Xenophon and Aristohanes?
“Or perhaps no such person ever existed. Who knows?” Ok, well, if you are going to equate your skepticism about Jesus with your skepticism about Shakespeare, I grant that you are at least intellecutally consistent.
Shakespeare stole most of his stories. I doubt he really did the things we believe he did, too.
But you have yet to supply any sort of reasonable theory of who DID write them, and when, since they are referred to by early church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome.
Answer: I think the early church leaders wrote the bulk of the New Testament in such a way as to make it seem like there was a divinely ordained line of succession from Jesus and the apostles that led directly to the Catholic Church. There’s plenty of motive for forgery right there. I don’t think the gospels are fabrications by the church exactly, especially Mark’s gospel. But I do think they were tampered with for the same reason the epistles were written that I just gave.
Except that near as I can tell, your only exposure to the history of the church is books trying to prove the church made everything up.
Answer: No while I only had a couple of classes on the Christian religion and the Bible in college one of them covered the early emergent church in detail.
This is hardly a non Christian example, since Christians believe that Christ fulfilled and built upon the foundation laid down in the Old Testament.
Answer: Yes but there are many sound refutations of this idea by Jewish rabbis available on the Internet. The connection between the OT and the NT is a contrivance made by the NT authors.
You made claims that the “Jesus myth” was based on pagan sun gods or some such. I think you overstate the similarities, particularly when you look at the whole of the gospels rather than just the birth narratives.
Answer: There really isn’t anything original in the gospels though.
Again, you frame your conditions for your case similarly to Ken Humphreys, that is to say, you automatically discount anyone who studies Paul unless they are studying Paul to debunk him.
Answer: That just doesn’t make sense coming from someone as science minded and familiar with scientific method as you are. Shouldn’t you be questioning the existence of such a figure yourself? This shows I think, that you are willing to lower your standards of proof when it comes to your religious beliefs.
But then, perhaps you also don’t believe Gamaliel existed? After all, he is mentioned in Acts, so he MUST be a figment of 3rd century church conspiracy (wry smile).
Answer: Right I have my doubts about Gamaliel and just about everything in the Talmud. Have you read this thing?
Bernie, you do realize that since Jesus was a “teacher”, it is entirely fitting that the only people that originally wrote about him were his “followers”. Isn’t the same true of Socrates? Or do you think that Plato invented Socrates, with the collusion of Xenophon and Aristohanes?
Answer: Yes I do think Socrates is a literary invention, a mouthpiece for Plato. As with Shakespeare in college, I had an Ancient Greek language teacher in high school tell the class that Socrates never existed. She said Homer never existed either and that the Odyssey was actually written by a woman, that Troy, Helen, Ulysses and giant Cyclopses and ogres also never existed. When we studied some of the texts written by Herodotus it was easy to see the many distinctions between history writing and fiction writing in antiquity.
Bernie: ”Answer: First of all your answer would be countered by a Muslim by saying Jesus can’t live in anyone’s heart because he’s a false god. Obviously you’ve never studied Islam.”
Ah, but I know enough to know that they do’t believe in having a personal relationship with Allah the way we do with God through Christ. Christ lives in our hearts and lives because He was resurrected from the dead…..Allah, according to Islam, never died and rose again. And anyone who can live in every believers heart, has to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Only Yahweh, the God of the Bible is that.
And I really think a lot of Moslems would take issue with you about whether Mohammed existed or not! The Koran is full of his teachings.
” I think the early church leaders wrote the bulk of the New Testament in such a way as to make it seem like there was a divinely ordained line of succession from Jesus and the apostles that led directly to the Catholic Church.” But this is a very general statement. Which church leaders? When? You are claiming they made up everything from Jesus to the Apostles to Paul, yet you have provided nothing in the way of proof, just a general suspicion of everything church related. “I don’t think the gospels are fabrications by the church exactly, especially Mark’s gospel.” Then you DO think there is a kernal of truth somewhere in all that alleged (mostly) and proven (occasionally) tampering. “Yes but there are many sound refutations of this idea by Jewish rabbis available on the Internet. The connection between the OT and the NT is a contrivance made by the NT authors.” Well of COURSE jewish rabbies would refute this. They (like the Jewish writers of the 1st century) did not recognize Jesus as Messiah, only a common blasphemous criminal.
“This shows I think, that you are willing to lower your standards of proof when it comes to your religious beliefs.” Absolutely. Religious belief is based on faith and spiritual experience, not the scientific method. However, the historical fact of Jesus and Paul I DO think holds us to “scientific inquiry” in terms of it is more probable that they existed than that they are complete fabrications. Obviously, the faith claims about Jesus are a different matter.
“There really isn’t anything original in the gospels though.” A crucified criminal actually God? God eschewing the usual human power constructs and instead preaching spiritual power through meekness? Just because when the church became a powerful entity in the 4th century they ignored the anti-authoritarian message in the gospels doesn’t mean it isn’t there…why do you think the Roman Catholic Church tried so hard to keep the very scriptures originally canonized out of the hands of the “unwashed masses” when literacy became more common?
In other words, if the “church authorities” were going to make stuff up, they would have made it line up more with what became the doctrine of Church Authority.
” I think the early church leaders wrote the bulk of the New Testament in such a way as to make it seem like there was a divinely ordained line of succession from Jesus and the apostles that led directly to the Catholic Church.” But this is a very general statement. Which church leaders? When? You are claiming they made up everything from Jesus to the Apostles to Paul, yet you have provided nothing in the way of proof, just a general suspicion of everything church related.
Answer: Marcion for one. He probably wrote a good chunk of the New Testament.
“I don’t think the gospels are fabrications by the church exactly, especially Mark’s gospel.” Then you DO think there is a kernal of truth somewhere in all that alleged (mostly) and proven (occasionally) tampering.
Answer: No, the gospels were not written to be interpreted literally. They are mythical stories about a mythical messianic figure.
“Yes but there are many sound refutations of this idea by Jewish rabbis available on the Internet. The connection between the OT and the NT is a contrivance made by the NT authors.” Well of COURSE jewish rabbies would refute this. They (like the Jewish writers of the 1st century) did not recognize Jesus as Messiah, only a common blasphemous criminal.
Answer: That is simply not true. No Jewish leaders or writers ever heard of Jesus Christ. That the Jews rejected Jesus is nothing but a Christian fairytale coming from the Bible and nowhere else. Where is the extra-biblical evidence that the Jews ever even heard of Jesus Christ? Also Jewish rabbis that were handed these traditions by those who came before them are much more qualified to tell us what the OT says than Christian apologists who haven’t a clue about Jewish history, traditions, religion, thought or anything else Jewish.
“This shows I think, that you are willing to lower your standards of proof when it comes to your religious beliefs.” Absolutely. Religious belief is based on faith and spiritual experience, not the scientific method. However, the historical fact of Jesus and Paul I DO think holds us to “scientific inquiry” in terms of it is more probable that they existed than that they are complete fabrications. Obviously, the faith claims about Jesus are a different matter.
Answer: You keep asking me for evidence yet you provide nothing to support these statements of faith you make.
“There really isn’t anything original in the gospels though.” A crucified criminal actually God?
Answer: Attis was supposedly the Son of God, crucified to pay for the sins of the world much like other crucified saviors. The gospels never actually claim Jesus is God. The English may seem to some to imply this but this notion is nowhere present in the original Greek.
God eschewing the usual human power constructs and instead preaching spiritual power through meekness? Just because when the church became a powerful entity in the 4th century they ignored the anti-authoritarian message in the gospels doesn’t mean it isn’t there…why do you think the Roman Catholic Church tried so hard to keep the very scriptures originally canonized out of the hands of the “unwashed masses” when literacy became more common?
Answer: The gospels are hardly anti-authoritarian. They are full of religious dogma and threats of violence.
In other words, if the “church authorities” were going to make stuff up, they would have made it line up more with what became the doctrine of Church Authority.
Answer: Religions evolve. The religious beliefs of Christians from say just 500 years ago are vastly different than those held by modern Christians. In fact if these two types could meet they would surely accuse each other of heresy. Your denial of the flatness of the earth would get you arrested 500 years ago and a 500 year old Christian belief would be grounds for admission into a mental institution today.
Bernie: “You keep asking me for evidence yet you provide nothing to support these statements of faith you make.” I am asking for evidence in regards to the historical Jesus and historical Paul. I am admitting that evidence is lacking for e “divine” Jesus, at least as you define evidence.
Attis. Give me a break. Any similarity between him and Jesus is spurious at best. Attis castrates himself beneath a pine tree after he is driven insane before his wedding by Agdistis when the he-she becomes enamoured with him. His blood flows onto the ground from his severed organ and brings forth a patch of violets. And the first mention of Attis in relation to being a savior doesn’t appear until 6th century A.D., so it is more likely that Christianity inspired that interpretation of Attis, not vice versa.
“The gospels are hardly anti-authoritarian.” Yes they are. You are simply wrong, here. Jesus was about as anti-authoritarian a figure as has ever been written about. “They are full of religious dogma and threats of violence.” Oh please. have you READ the sermon on the mount?
There are so many reasons Marcion could not have written the New Testament I don’t know where to begin. For one thing, Marcion felt the entire Hebrew Scriptures should be scrapped, so why he would then write gospels and letters proving Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament is counter-intuitive. Marcion wrote his own gospel, was thoroughly dualistic in nature, and felt that his gospel and ten Pauline letters were what should be canonized. If anything, Marcion is proof that there were already versions of the synoptic gospels in print by early second century, and that Paul’s letters were already recognized as scripture.
One thing we owe Marcion: his populat teachings spurred the other Christian authorities to start working on a unified, catholic and Judaism-derived form of Christianity. Polycarp from Smyrne, Ephraim of Syria, Dionysius of Corinth, Theophilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus and Rhodo in Rome, Bardesanes at Edessa, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen of Alexandria are just a few of the early church fathers who criticised Marcion and thus would hardly allow him to forge a whole new Christianity based on mythical figures of his own creation.
“No Jewish leaders or writers ever heard of Jesus Christ.” Not until His followers became a religion that threatened their own existence, at any rate. But by then you discount all mention of Christianity as being created from a myth. Why would Jewish writers write about a personage they viewed as a “heretic” until they could no longer afford to ignore him?
May I also suggest that IF Christianity was based on a myth, don’t you think the Jewish writers would have been very quick to write about that as Christianity gained ground? I mean, wouldn’t they be more likely to write denying that such a person ever existed unless they also knew Jesus had existed but just didn’t think he was important?
Hi
After reading through all of these lengthy posts, it is abundantly clear that baggins has by far, the most consistent, intellectually honest and authoritatively superior set of arguments, Bernie’s weak attempts at putting forward any compelling reasons as to why we should concur with his religious, faith based fairytale of atheism, are laughable at best. For example, he employs the classic atheistic tactic which is to plead that his case has already been argued by others and hence he doesn’t need to argue the point, if you can’t articulate your own defence of your assertions then don’t make them. Secondly, he makes erroneous claim after erroneous claim, for example, that all non biblical historians treat the new testament as historically unreliable, then fails to back it up, cherry picking a handful of discredited, biased sources and rests his case, so to speak, on strawmen. His dismissal of extra biblical sources as frauds is beyond a joke, most definitely not reflective of the mainstream historical communities view (biblical and non biblical scholars alike) and a downright fraud in itself. He makes cut and run assertions in this subject area, fails to back it up with any reliable historical proof, and cuts and pastes large chunks from atheistic sources as though they should be blindly believed. His arguments wouldn’t convince a gambling addict to place a bet on the truth or accuracy of his ramblings at even 10,000 to 1, let alone someone with a modicum of intellect and reasoning ability. Easy victory to Baggins with little need for any additional rounds
Apologies – did not mean to post ananymously…
Hi
After reading through all of these lengthy posts, it is abundantly clear that baggins has by far, the most consistent, intellectually honest and authoritatively superior set of arguments, Bernie’s weak attempts at putting forward any compelling reasons as to why we should concur with his religious, faith based fairytale of atheism, are laughable at best. For example, he employs the classic atheistic tactic which is to plead that his case has already been argued by others and hence he doesn’t need to argue the point, if you can’t articulate your own defence of your assertions then don’t make them. Secondly, he makes erroneous claim after erroneous claim, for example, that all non biblical historians treat the new testament as historically unreliable, then fails to back it up, cherry picking a handful of discredited, biased sources and rests his case, so to speak, on strawmen. His dismissal of extra biblical sources as frauds is beyond a joke, most definitely not reflective of the mainstream historical communities view (biblical and non biblical scholars alike) and a downright fraud in itself. He makes cut and run assertions in this subject area, fails to back it up with any reliable historical proof, and cuts and pastes large chunks from atheistic sources as though they should be blindly believed. His arguments wouldn’t convince a gambling addict to place a bet on the truth or accuracy of his ramblings at even 10,000 to 1, let alone someone with a modicum of intellect and reasoning ability. Easy victory to Baggins with little need for any additional rounds