Comments on: How Can We Know That Jesus Lived, Died & Rose Again?

By: Troy Geri

Troy Geri — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:12:18 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:09:14 +0000

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

By: kash

kash — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:02:03 +0000

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?

By: kash

kash — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:53:49 +0000

“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?

By: kash

kash — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:51:07 +0000

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.

By: kash

kash — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:47:13 +0000

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.

By: kash

kash — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:39:04 +0000

“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?

By: kash

kash — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:37:09 +0000

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.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:07:10 +0000

” 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.

By: kash

kash — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:46:18 +0000

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.