I didn’t say both could be accurate, I stated that both Luke and Matthew knew what they were writing wasn’t “history” in the sense we think of it, and attributed their MVP (most valuable patriarch) to the positition in Jesus’ lineage.
At a later time eh? When hell freezes over?
Even if they do date back to 45 AD (which most scholars don’t date them back that early.) he only saw christ in visions.
a) in visions. (see the scripture I quoted)
b) I testified that my buddy saw christ too (J. Smith pulled the same tactic, later on (which is little known) the three main witnesses both came out and said that they never saw moroni or the golden plates.)
c) see b.
d) mythologically not in reality. Let me put it another way… christ was crucified in “heaven” not on earth. There’s no doubt that christ was based on a real person, but he was only seen by the patriarchs of the christian church (peter, paul, and james, etc) in visions and dreams. Later on, (at least 100 years) the gospels were written and the apostles (according to Pauls’ own words) became direct disciples for jesus. If peter or james or john (the writer of revelation) had actually seen christ do you think maybe they would’ve mentioned that in their writings instead of talking about “visions”?
e) It does matter when the gospels were written because they are the only thing that establishes the miracles and life of christ.
f) that’s a very vague reference and it contradicts how many people saw the returning christ in Acts. If we are to believe Paul 500 people saw it. Of course there’s the obvious problem that we only have Paul to back this statement up. In all other places (see hebrews) he talks about the “coming” of christ, and “if christ did reside on earth”.
g) that’s way earlier, than I’ve seen anywhere. And that would put it before Mark which it’s based on. Earliest dating I’ve seen for fragments of Mark is 110 AD, the earliest dating for John which uses Mark would have to be after that point. But let’s say it is 100 AD, that’s 70 years after the time of the mythical christ and a 170 years after the actual christ. Peter believed christ was crucified 100 years earlier under the king at the time.
h) that’s bullshit. My dates don’t stand up to YOUR criticism. And they aren’t my dates anyways, they are dates from SCHOLARS. If you have issue with the dating these scholars came up with take it up with them and show how your dates are better.
Tacitus is a great example… he never quoted any of the gospels and lived in the late first century to early second century. He was concerned with the histrocity of christ and never quoted the Josephus statement either.
The statement you quote from Josephus wasn’t quoted before the sixth century. Not only that, it interrupts the flow of what he was talking about.
Josephus was a Jew and would not have talked about christ in that way.
It interrupts the flow of that “chapter”.
only the very desperate bible scholar hangs onto this Josephus statement as proof that christ lived at this time.
READ what Paul wrote:
Can I expect a reply on points 3 and 4 later? after you’ve had time to come up with a reply?
And when can I expect you to talk about the topic here? That all gods are false, and there is as much proof for Jason as there is for Jesus?
after all many greeks talked about Jason, therefore he must be real.
Use it or loose it? Or is this absolutist conformation?
Either way, anyone who forces me instead of teaching me can kiss my ass goodbye because i dont tolerate that kind of shit.
Oh yes, what does modesty ever have to do with being human? Lets just all make huge claims about the one above and beyond the entire universe, even though we dont even know much about the entire universe.
Sometimes choosing not to talk is wiser then a thousand words.
In you’r life you had pain and pleasure, good and bad, and its up to you to make the most of it. Wasn’t illativemindindeed talking about making the most of our understanding of the super-natural? Surely relative and less-opinionated believes are more true then the hallow claims and mad faith of God-gangsters.
Myauw, you’r faith or you’r life punk, stick em up!
I think the relativist fails for the simple fact that he/she can never really know when they are right or wrong.
I also think the best situation would be not to get rid of the bible as it does contain some interesting mythology, but more to the point of not letting the fundamentalists use it to “be aggressive”…
Only the moderate can take that power away from them though, by saying they can derive life’s mystery from any book (ala my alice in wonderland example.)
You mean the same day that you actually start thinking for yourself instead of regurtitating the same old drivel?
See 1 Corinthians 15 - the fact remains that he testifies that he saw Jesus as much as the others also testify they were witnesses to Jesus. We could date the epistles back about to 50 – 60 A.D. and the change is not that drastic.
(1) There is a difference between your scenario and my scenario
(2) You are testifying that your buddy saw Christ and not that you, yourself, saw Christ and believe in Christ.
(3) Do you think your friend would be willing to be crucified for his belief that he saw Chirst?
(4) Would you be willing to testify to something you weren’t SURE of if it meant death to testify?
(5) Peter and James independently confirmed what Paul testified.
Facts not in evidence. There is next to nothing that suggests that Peter, Paul, James, 500 others, the twelve, and all the rest spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15 only saw “visions”. I don’t see why Revelations has to mention Jesus walking on Earth because the subject is simply about his return and not about his previous stay. In other words, I don’t need to establish that my friend Avicenna was at my domain to speak about his imminent return to my domain.
Actually, the greatest miracle is mentioned in Paul’s letters: the resurrection, which is the central theme of the earliest Church doctrine. Below is another example of Paul testifying to this: Romans 1:1-17 KJV:
“[i]Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, [u]separated unto the gospel of God, (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead[/u]: by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. [u]For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son[/u], that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; that is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. [u]So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. [/u] For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.[/i]â€
There are some important things established in this epistle: Paul, a Pharisee and traditional Jew, reiterates that there were prophecies of God concerning Jesus, that Jesus was born of the line of David, that he was the Son of God and that he was resurrected from the dead. Additionally, Paul establishes the gospel of God’s son, that he would preach this gospel, and that this gospel was the road to salvation.
Wrong, look at Romans 1 (above). Peter confirmed he saw Christ. James too. The others too… We have multiple people testifying. Also, there is NOT ONE person that lived during that period (circa Chirst, circa Paul, Peter, and the rest) that testified that these men were liars or that testified that Christ did not walk the earth. The absence of witnesses on your end speaks volumes!
(a) We should clarify written and printed. Simply, evidence suggests the books were written earlier and that the earliest copies have been lost. (b) The point is that if an actual fragment exists that dates back to 100 A.D. there is very likely other fragments that will date back sooner. It isn’t that much of a stretch. Peter did not believe Christ was crucified 100 years earlier. Show us the evidence. Actual, words from Peter. You don’t have them. You are speculating without any facts, conclusion about that statement: Facts not in evidence.
Sure, sure… It would be helpful if you provided the names of those scholars.
I never quoted Josephus. However, Josephus mentions him twice. There is one mention whose veracity is in doubt and the other that is widely regarded as historically accurate. Josephus was a Jew, with good reason to NOT make a case for Christ.
I suggest YOU do this… you are not very familiar with his complete works. So far, I have provide Romans 1:1-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 {the whole chapter} I can provide you with many more where Paul talks about a living Christ (in the flesh) and a resurrected Christ, and witnesses, and personal attestations… You have no basis to argue that Paul did not preach the Christ that is preached in the gospels a.k.a. the historical Christ. All you provided was a week, small, reference in Hebrews that you applied incorrectly.
#3 Archaeology – I stated that archaeology supports many of the events in the bible. I use this to claim that the bible is “historically accurate†in many events. There is no archaeological evidence that supports the Book of Mormon. Thus, we see the difference between the bible and other would be religious texts. Aside from that, I am not interested in debating the actual archaeology in this thread. If you want to start a thread elsewhere, I will eventually join you there. There is already too much in this thread to keep up with…
#4 Multiple Historians – there are multiple historians that back up Christ: Luke, Paul, Tacitus, Josephus, Peter, James… and on and on. In fact, most historians that we have that wrote on historical events wrote HUNDREDS of years after the events that we do not question.
There isn’t as much proof. There may be people that spoke of Jason but none personally attest, none were willing to die for their attestations, et al. There is no comparison in HOW they talk about Jason and HOW the apostles talked about Christ.
You don’t believe an ounce of what you posted above, and all you’ve done is succeeded in showing how in one place Paul says he’s only seen christ in visions and that he is soon coming, and another place that talks about how he’s been seen by large groups of people.
As for the other people? many people were willing to die for mohammed and joe smith and jason. According to your claim that makes them historically accurate?
The archaelogy only proves that the writers lived in that area. Frankly the fact that no jews were found in North America or that there is no evidence of an abrahamic worship site in mecca do nothing to discourage people from believing those specious claims so when challenging religion it’s best in my opinion to ignore the archaelogy.
and it’s funny that you say this:
then immediately quote the 1 cor 15:
Maybe you should stop re-gurgitating the same stuff as well?
As for the other witnesses? the ones that stayed with smith testified to the end that the plates and moroni were real. Brigham Young and all sorts of other mormons wrote other works based upon smith’s belief justifying it further.
The same is true for Mohammed. Jason.
And the same thing holds for the martyrs in each group. People will almost always be willing to die for their beliefs.
The one difference christ has is that the people mentioned in the stories actually exist. Does that mean it actually happened?
Do you believe George Washington cut down an apple tree than confessed to it? Do you believe a giant guy named Paul Bunyan helped de-forest the west? It’s historically accurate and gets the names of the places right.
it proves nothing.
The second mention in Josephus isn’t as widely disputed but at the same time it doesn’t really tell us a whole lot either. It doesn’t say much more than “jesus was a teacher”…
Jesus (yeshua in hebrew) was a VERY common name during this day and age, Yeshua is the name of the saviour… Joshua (OT prophet) ALSO translates to Yeshua. This is no coincidence. It’s the same thing that happens today when people name their children after famous people.
I question why you keep bringing this statement up, as the whole “martyred for christ” thing was invented by the church in the sixth century. Very few christians were outright martyred like the church would have you believe.
this is again a specious jump. Muslims believe that if they kill themselves they get to heaven, does that make their belief justified?
as for your huge quotation of the bible, where in there specifically does it say PAUL or others physically saw god?
According to acts.
Paul was a diasporic jew who had visions of christ and was probably the founder of the christian religion much like mohamed and joseph smith. The differences of the places matching correctly is inconsequential, if the jews had actually came to america would it prove the book of mormon correct?
It’s like saying “because paul mentioned Rome, we know every supernatural claim he makes is completely true”
People are willing to die for lots of supernatural beliefs look at the members of the heaven’s gate cult who drank the kool-aid to meet their alien creators in the comet.
It proves zilch for the claim that christ was in some way special or that christianity was special. EVERY religion claims some form of persecution.
This is a lot of words to waste in attacking Islam and Mormonism when nobody in the thread is defending them, don’t you think? I don’t see a salient point here- because some other religions disregard archaeological evidence, therefore archaeological evidence is fit to be ignored when discussing religion? What kind of sense does that make? Isn’t one of the primary reasons you are critical of Mormonism and Islam the fact that archaeology disagrees with them? Doesn’t sound like you’re ignoring archaeology to me. Also, up to this point, your arguments have been filled with references to history, archaeology, and such things which you’ve used to demonstrate your points. Why the sudden change of heart about the value of archaeology?
It seems to me like just an excuse to continue reasoning ‘off the cuff’ so to speak, without concern for what the facts actually state.
It would also be instructive to point out that both Islam and Mormonism affirm the essential truth of what the Gospels say, and do not present themselves as competitive with the Gospels, but rather as fullfillment and extension of them.
I thought you were done with this archaeology business?
In short, while numbers have been exaggerated by the Church in the past, secular scholars put 2nd Century martys alone at around 1500. Things like this can be traced back as far as Nero in the first century, so probably ought to do some fact checking on that. Where’d you get your 6th Century reference?
Prove is a strong word… I am trying to demonstrate that it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Simply: God & Spaghetti Monster are not on equal footing.
Whether or not I personally accept these things is not at the crux of the issue. The main point is that what I have provided are reasonable answers and counter-points to your arguments.
This is a nonsensical observation. He can claim both visions and witnesses without either losing face. It is not possible that Paul had a vision and that Peter saw the real deal? It not only is possible, but probable. And it happened as attested to by Paul.
Of course you fail to see a critical difference. Mohammed’s followers were willing to die for what they believed in, same for Joseph Smith; however, Paul, Peter, and others, were willing to die for what they actually witnessed AND believed. There is a huge difference.
All this time we were arguing about the validity of archaeology only to have it so easily dismissed by you… for shame. Archaeology has found early manuscripts of the gospels which allows us to at least date events that the gospels claim occurred. How important is that? VERY IMPORTANT. Without archaeology, we would be left with the Book of Mormon and Jason and the Argonauts. If we could find the empty tomb today, that would be a significant find. If we could find the grail, that would be a find, if we could find that Nazareth existed as a small town, that is a find, etc. etc. Archaeology supports biblical assertions or denies them… Claiming that archaeology should be left out is foolish (in my opinion). But again, I think it should be done in a different thread.
Scythekain, I added Romans 1:1-17 which supports 1 Corinthians 15:1-58, I could add a bunch more. It’s not the same, but more and more each time.
They were not put to the same scrutiny and challenge that the early disciples were put to… But more importantly, the disciples did testified that they believed AND that they witnessed. The Mormons can only claim that they believe, the same for Mohammed because nobody witnessed an Angel talking to Mohammed and nobody witnessed the cave incident.
It certainly means that it is more probable.
Nobody turns their backs on their entire culture, their entire way of life proclaiming to have WITNESSED these events of Washington and Bunyan. Paul, Peter, James, risked everything to proclaim and attest that they were witnesses of the resurrection of Christ. They preached Christ cruciffied and died believing it is so… there is a fundamental difference between this and Paul Bunyan and Spaghetti Monsters… You simply have no adequate way to make these things equal because there are no facts that support your assertions.
As I said, Josephus had an interest in reducing the role of Jesus in the early years of the new era.
Yeah, who was the so-called Christ and had a brother named James… I wonder how many people fit that perfect description. Also, I thought archaeology should be ignored… You can’t have it both ways. Many were martyred. In fact, Paul had to tell them to stop chomping at the bit to be martyred.
As a friend described: at the very least they deserve to be taken seriously. In other words, it would be prudent to learn what the hoopla is all about. It is worth taking a look.
I didn’t claim that Paul claimed he saw god (or Jesus) in that quotation. He does, however, reiterate the claim of Christ resurrected! He has already testified to having been a witness of Christ. It still stands that Paul, a Jew, believed in the prophecies of the Messiah, who himself testified that he persecuted the disciples (not just in Acts), and he believed that Jesus was born of the line of David {a reference to Jesus’ geneaology} and that Jesus was the resurrected from the dead. All powerfully effective testimony. Also, if the Jews had come to America, it would certainly provide a better case for the book of Mormon.
Yes, but if you had not witnessed the crucifixion yourself, would you have died for your belief? I wouldn’t. Most people would not. Yet, here we see examples of physicians {Luke} of sinners {the morally corruptible}, or the religious {Saul} of the doubters {Thomas} and more all proclaiming Christ cruficified. The same is not true of Heaven’s gate which preyed on the children… It does not stand.
The relativist always knows hes right in his POV. He is better apt at accepting others POV as well, which makes him more susceptible to change and growth, which is the whole point of our existence.
Sure they are (in my mind) they are both false gods. (i.e. there is no “real god” that is definable per say)
That is important, because your arguments don’t come from within, and are false.
I don’t Joseph Smith and Mohammed accomplished it so it must not be that hard. Prophet Yahweh claims to call down UFO’s (and has video proof of doing so!)
So maybe you’re looking at it wrong. Maybe it wasn’t that hard to be a prophet after all! Especially to an established side sect of Judaism, that already believed in resurrection.
Think about it. you yourself date the earliest of Paul’s letters to 45 AD less than 12 years after Jesus death and resurrection. Within 12 years we are to believe that there are church of god’s all over the Roman Empire? He addresses letters to nearly every church in the empire and the many apocryphal letters cover many more churches. In 12 years, mormonism barely had enough people to fill 2 congregations. Using military might, Mohammed was only able to capture about 3 cities in 12 years.
It just doesn’t add up. Either like the scholar (Alvar Ellegard) I’ve been quoting says, that jesus existed 100 years before the official church christ as an essene teacher of wisdom. OR, Jesus is a complete figment of Paul’s imagination and he shares the hallucination with others the same way Joseph Smith did. It’s a well documented fact that if I tell you that I see Jesus on a hill and you want to save face with me because you believe I’m a prophet… you will ALSO see jesus on a hill.
Let’s look again briefly at the “500” others. Who are they? would they be willing to come to a church meeting and testify such? or is it just a convenient head count?
And who while the lord was standing there shocking and aweing the people decided to take a census of the people standing there?
The only story that is worse in this regard is when Jesus returns and helps them catch something like “134” fish… Are you saying that they weren’t in such awe of the lord that they had someone EXACTLY count how many fish there were?
No, the difference is the same. Mohammed claims to have witnessed god in a cave and his followers believe that. Joseph Smith claims to have seen angels, and his followers believe that. The founders of the christian church (all of them romans btw, which explains the merging of hellenistic ideals into judaism to form the crux of christianity) also claim such visions.
The only proof we have is the same too. He and his fellow followers wrote down that he or they saw such things.
If I wrote down that I went up to the highest mountain and talked to god, do you think even most christians would believe me? How about if I write it down?
Archaeology also proves that no such place as Nazareth existed during the “time” of jesus.
Archaeology also proves that the slaughter of children never happened.
Archaeology ALSO proves that if they really nailed his feet to the cross, they would’ve sawed his legs off right above the ankle to take him down.
(they’ve found many bones like this from the ossuaries in the area, from that time.)
Archaeology proves that the census:
A) happened too late even for the much too late dating of christ (about 15 AD)
B) was a tax census thus would want to know where to collect taxes from, not where your “great, great, great, great grandparents live”
Do you really want to try to uphold christianity through archaeology?
Let’s say you CAN date it to that relative time period, like you say the fragment of John dated to the early second century. (which is unlikely it’s that early as the Barnabas letter is dated to 90 AD and still references the church by “church of god” and not “synagogue”) What does that prove beyond the fact it was written around that time? It’s still too late to be near the events of christs life. And we’ve discovered ancient scrolls of Jason and other ancient stories and texts. Does that prove that, for instance the egyptian kings really do get resurrected?
How important is that? VERY IMPORTANT. Without archaeology, we would be left with the Book of Mormon and Jason and the Argonauts. If we could find the empty tomb today, that would be a significant find. If we could find the grail, that would be a find, if we could find that Nazareth existed as a small town, that is a find, etc. etc. Archaeology supports biblical assertions or denies them… Claiming that archaeology should be left out is foolish (in my opinion). But again, I think it should be done in a different thread.
And I rebuked it. Romans 1:1-17 does not say that he saw christ in the flesh or that christ existed.
1 cor 15 does no more than say “see these other people besides me saw the event as well. 500 others that were caravaning with me”.
mohammed got other witnesses as well.
this echos old testament writings where “a great multitude saw the face of the lord”
Joe smith also claimed other witnesses
Think about these proofs. The only proof we have is:
the name on the other books of the authors claiming they saw jesus
the writings of a (in my opinion) someone who’d be locked away today as a madman for talking to himself.
Think about this as well, Paul:
prophesied that christ would come within the lifetime of the reader of the letter and the congregation. Since this didn’t happen it makes Paul a liar and a false prophet. This was fixed with the later written gospels by having christ say “no one knows the hour…”
Felt that mental illness and sickness, were caused by demons. We now know that such things are caused by germs, bacteria, viruses, our parents, our genetics or society. So once again proof that like mohamed and joe, he was a superstitious guy who pinned things on the supernatural. False prophet, because of this? if you call the others false prophets for such statements the same must apply to Paul.
I disagree. Like I stated before, all religions claim to be repressed. The fact that christianity started out repressed whether true or not is not a big surprise. Today christians and non christians look at “cults” starting out and repress them. It’s human nature. Some of those cults will do like christianity and mormonism and muslims were able to do, grow and split off into other sects. Some of them will be destroyed by society (waco) some will be self-destroying (heavens gate).
Repression does not = truth.
It certainly is probable that there was a great teacher named “Yeshua”… but like I said there were lot’s of teachers named Yeshua at the time. The one that Josephus talks about was a rabbi, and josephus links him more with the pharisees than with the essenes (which he talks about.)
see the problem with the winner, is they get to re-write what actually happened. Like I said earlier… were their christians killed? most likely. But again our good old friend archaelogy proves that it’s unlikely. We find our good friend icthus in a temple in a ruined roman city. Right next door is a temple for mithras.
Were christians killed out of spite? probably along with all the other religious who didn’t like the official roman religion. I very much doubt that if conditions were as bad as they have you believe that they would openly profess their belief in a a church, like has been found in many ancient ruined cities.
I was ignoring archaelogy for your sake… not mine. It’s in my opinion much better to show how the books contradict themselves then to throw actual history at the book.
let’s take washington again, who we know was a real person, but know never cut down apple trees and made the now infamous statement of “I cannot tell a lie”… that was written while Washington was ALIVE. Is it really such a stretch to think that stories could be written about someone (like the gospels) and they NOT be true? IMO the stories left out of the bible are far more interesting about the “life” of christ. I especially like where the child christ in a spite pushes children off the top of a building.
It’s much more telling of what christians really want. Don’t take my word for it, look at how many copies of the hit “novels”, “left behind” sold.
there is no fundamental difference.
god = spaghetti monster both not real.
Story of Jesus = Story of Jason. There may have been a real Jason that the story was based upon there may have been a real jesus. whether or not there is doesn’t affect the mythical importance of either story. Paul’s writings are all eschatological, and are in essence how Paul thinks the church should be run and in what direction an existing church should go.
yeah and that ossuary they found, that said “James brother of Jesus” (translated of course) … that must’ve been the actual ossuary of James the brother of Jesus!
There is no other possibility! If we find a gravestone 1000 years from now that says “jeb brother of george”, it must be the brother of george bush right?
I agree you should take a look. Though, with a skeptical eye. I would use the “skeptics annotated quran” (use the link from the religion sticky)
I think it’s important to remember to look at all religions like this:
You have five people in a room. All five claim to have the divine truth and only by following them will you gain access to heaven. If you don’t follow the right one, they tell you you’ll spend an eternity in hell.
Would you be willing to take a 1/5th chance on heaven and a 4/5th’s chance on hell? Especially when examining early judaism and christianity from a more critical stand point and revealing Paul for what he was. No different than any other so called “prophet”.
What’s more likely, that one of them are right, or they’re all wrong, and all superstitions?
do yourself a favor, and research the other religions. There’s no way you’d be standing behind such spurious text once you’ve read what other religions say.
again you are trying to jump through un-necessary hoops. The drinkers of kool-aid never witnessed the UFO in the comet. The men who flew planes into the twin towers never witnessed the 70 virgins.
And who says “luke” was a physician? is it Paul or the gospels written in at the very least 70 years later? (if not closer to 170 like the scholar I’ve quoted ascertains.)
I think you are again jumping through hoops…
“Look at all these people that testified that they saw the christ!” (according to false prophets (see note above))
“Look at all these people that when they pray to allah they feel his presence!”
“Look at all these people, when they put on funny white robes and goto temple ceremonies to get married, it makes them feel sacred and holy!”
So which is it thirst?
Which god is more right? the one that’s more ancient? in that case hinduism wins.
the one with more witnesses? Joseph smith claimed more direct NAMEABLE witnesses than early christianity.
No, I was trying to show the similiarity of all religions. Obviously I fell short of accomplishing that.
When I said that (as I posted above) I was trying to show how the bible is internally inconsistent like other holy books.
EDIT:
and can be proven to be false without (or unfortunately as I’ve shown) with limited use of archaelogy.
I think I’ve established above that archaelogy does not infact help the christian position.
Let’s put it into perspective though. How many Mithraists lost their lives in the second century? How many jews?
(I actually don’t know the answer to this, I’ll look at the article and see if it says.)
Let’s also look at it another fashion… in the past 3 years 2100 soldiers have lost their lives protecting Iraqis and trying to establish a democracy there. A soldier and a martyr are very similiar in some respects. Both are willing to die for their beliefs or their leaders beliefs.
Just finished reading that article, unfortunately it didn’t seem very central, and quoted alot of later church leaders talking about how persecuted they used to be.
I would be curious for a secular line giving the following info:
After this post: I am done answering your myriad of questions… I will address only the points that are relevant or we will go round and round for eternity.
They are not on equal footing. There is a lot more information available to justify one’s faith in the Bible than there is for the Spaghetti Monster.
The issue is not about me or my beliefs. That aside: you are actually claiming that if arguments come from within, they are not false. So, billions of Christians whose arguments are from within can rejoice, thanks to you. .
Smith, Mohammed had followers who believed in them, respectively. Mohammed, Smith, never performed miracles in front of his followers and each had their own agenda.
Didn’t he recently give some BS excuse as to why the UFO’s stopped coming down or something?
I don’t “date” anything. These are dates that scholars have established.
Actually, you should think about this: Jesus was one man that preached his gospel for a mere three years and managed to reach thousands and reached a long distance. Within a short time of “Pentecost” there were thousands. The message spread amazingly quick. When you can establish a church of thousands within a few days, you can imagine the benefits that the gospels received. It makes a lot of sense. Ellegard has a poor (weak) case. As for “figment” of imagination, I think that it’s off base. Peter preached that he saw him in the flesh not in a vision.
Oh, now its collusion? Spare me. Peter, James, and the other apostles, had A LOT more to lose by sticking with someone that had visions than by “saving face” and claiming they see visions too.
Let us remember that the epistle was to the Corinthian believers who were in all likelihood familiar with many of these other witnesses.
Hilarious! It was probably an approximation based on the size of the crowd. Or maybe, they lined up all the witnesses and took names? The Million Man March proclaimed success… So what if there were only 600,000 people there: it looked like a million. It is not a malicious lie to report that a million people were there or to call it the million man march.
Well, I don’t know about you, but if I were a fisherman, I would want to know how many fish I caught that I was going to try to sell to the marketplace. You have been reduced to nitpicking at such small things!
Differences can’t be the same…
Paul claimed that he saw Jesus, Peter claimed that he knew Jesus, the twelve claimed that they saw Jesus, 500 others (approximately ) saw Jesus. There is a difference between believing that Mohammed went into a cave (WHERE THERE WERE NO WITNESSES) and believing the actual witnesses themselves.
We must, at this point, introduce the fact that the early converts MUST have been aware that someone named Jesus was crucified. This would have been easy to verify with the Roman officials. This, of course, aids the cause for a Jesus that walked the Earth. That is, there must have been a Jesus that created a stir in the area with his miracles. When he was killed people thought: Oh, well. But when people died testifying they saw him resurrected, that was the powerful evidence that converted thousands. Jesus walked the Earth during the time of Peter and those other disciples/apostles.
I told you I didn’t want to deal with archaeology in this thread… oh well.
Archaelogists have found recent evidence that suggests that Nazareth existed during Jesus’ lifetime, specifically a discovery of a list of rabbis that were relocated to Nazareth after the Jewish temple was destroyed. In fact, you should talk to Dr. James Strange who has led many discoveries near Nazareth. His number is (813) 974-1859 Below is an article of some recent discoveries. http://www.archaeology.org/9605/newsbriefs/qumran.html
I will assume you meant Bethlehem. Again, small village, not many people, fewer newborns, it wasn’t a big deal that it wasn’t recorded. You of all people (cause you’re a liberal) should not be surprised if the dictatorship tried to cover it up.
Not necessarily but ESPECIALLY since a typical death on the cross took a lot more time. That is, maybe if they had cut him down at the regularly scheduled time. But recall that Jesus was pulled down and then entombed.
I don’t think that this issue is settled (that is, that the exact date of the census has been established). And remember, a census was done every 12 years (or something). So the previous Census to the one you site could be it if you give or take a just a few years. The fact is that a census could have taken place at the right time. The issue on learning geneaology is separate: that is, Jews kept their own records about families because it was important to know who had inheritance rights. The firstborn had to be established and known.
I have no problem presenting archaeological findings. You are the one that said you preferred to stay away. Though I would prefer to do them elsewhere.
I have no idea what you are trying to get dates for… John? Matthew? Mark? The epistles?
Are there witnesses to the resurrections? Are there accounts that Ramses was resurrected. I imagine that someone would a made a big deal about it… they way they made a big deal about the resurrection of Jesus.
Round and round the merry go round… Collusion is a pretty serious accusation for which you have provided no support. Paul, Peter, James, and the rest form a good amount of testimony and support for the biblical record.
Which is why I am also studying Islamic doctrine and Islamic apologetics. That said, I repeat that Mohammed had believers and did not have witnesses.
What are you referring to? Sorry, I am temporary lost…
Not witnesses… he had believers.
Think about this as well, Paul:
prophesied that christ would come within the lifetime of the reader of the letter and the congregation. Since this didn’t happen it makes Paul a liar and a false prophet. This was fixed with the later written gospels by having christ say “no one knows the hour…”
Felt that mental illness and sickness, were caused by demons. We now know that such things are caused by germs, bacteria, viruses, our parents, our genetics or society. So once again proof that like mohamed and joe, he was a superstitious guy who pinned things on the supernatural. False prophet, because of this? if you call the others false prophets for such statements the same must apply to Paul.
Different level of repression. Death is not something most cults face today, unless it is by their own hand. Truth is difficult to assess.
Witness testimony and archaeology = pretty convincing.
Our good friend archaeology proves nothing of the sort… There are plenty of records to indicate that following Christ led to executions. Plenty of archaeological evidence suggest this… Also, you forget the issue is that Jews had a lot to lose even without adding death to this!
Keep trying, your archaeology has proved nothing. Your scholars prove nothing. Round and round… unless you start accepting that there is convincing evidence (not proof) that allows people to justify their faith in Jesus and not in Jason or Moroni, or etc…
It’s probable. Then again, we don’t have people professing they witnessed this event. They were never taken to court and they never swore under oath. Is it a stretch, yes. Is it possible, sure. The stories left out… very amusing. Hit novels too… I think you are starting to wack off again. Get serious.
Better a 1/5 chance in heaven (20%) than a 0/5 (0%) chance…
That’s a tough question. I guess I have to examine the evidence don’t I?
I’ll have to come up with some good replies, to start with:
That’s a matter of opinion. (me and uccisore have discussed this before) you say you hold it to a higher skepticism than I do, vice versa round and round, doce do… where we stop god only knows.
A bible? sure… You’re MISSING the point of the spaghetti monster. The spaghetti monster is meant to show god could carry any form or shape, and who’s to say your wrong?
Can you DISPROVE the existence of the flying spaghetti monster? No more than I can disprove the existence of Jesus. No matter what I throw out there, you’ll have a handy rebuttal from a theological scholar. Than I’ll return to a secular scholar, etc. Round and round.
The only thing I have to say about that is, the world the bible presents in a literal fashion is illogical. You either recognize that or you don’t No amount of evidence is going to make someone change their mind if they hold an opinion one way or the other.
I like how you expand the number by 1000 times to make it seem a more difficult task to track them… It presents two problems (which you continue to deny)
Someone who was in the witness of christ would’ve had to have either guessed or COUNTED the number of witnesses there.
It’s unlikely that the corinthians KNEW these people, otherwise these people would’ve told the corinthians themselves and there would be no reason to write such a claim.
Ask yourself… This is a letter what was it’s purpose? It was to debunk the apostle Apollus who’s teachings about christ just being a wise teacher, Paul did not appreciate.
as for Nazareth?
Nazareth is a MODERN location.
exodus 24:10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, [a] clear as the sky itself. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
12 The LORD said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and commands I have written for their instruction.”
have you ever wondered WHY the israel jews didn’t immediately accept christ?
Think about what Paul taught… he taught that… YHVH is not your lord god, Jesus is!
That’s blaspheme! The lord god is in front of you and you’re worried about making money!
Remember what I said about borrowed mythology? This story is borrowed from plato… He was told that he would get all the fish if he could guess how many fish there were. Guess how many fish there were?
I was curious where Peter said he physically saw god, read through all of his writings really quickly and only saw where he’s referring to “talking to god”… not physically seeing him, I think it’s also obvious that Bob may be right about the way early christians viewed the resurrection of their god. It was a completely metaphysical event.
Here’s something I also found interesting that is mirrored in all religions, another warning against thinking for yourself and only following the prophets of jesus:
This is extremely common among modern cults as well… warning their followers not to listen to those who speak ill about their beliefs.
valid warning? or way to control your followers?
when we add this to the one unforgiveable sin of christianity the picture becomes very clear.
These are VERY veiled statements against thinking for yourself, ESPECIALLY when you tie that in with the original sin. What was the name of that tree adam ate from again?
“the tree of knowledge”
So what is the spaghetti monster? an allegory. He’s not MEANT to be real. He’s meant to show the falseness of all gods.
I’m sorry you don’t get it thirst, maybe you’ve been researching religion from the wrong side of belief.
turn the skeptic volume up a little more.
You failed to once again address key issues.
Paul the false prophet? false prophecy of the coming destruction… and the coming of christ. Christ came alright as a mythological figurehead presented in apocrypha and gospel.
Peter the false prophet:
They should’ve followed the true meaning of “prophet” instead of the mistranslated Latin/greek meaning. These romans thought to “prophesy” meant to predict the future…
The “ancient” prophets were what we would call “poets” and lyricized what had happened as warnings of what would happen if the people didn’t change.
So in closing of this article of the thread:
All religions are false. If a modern religion popped up claiming the same things, only the absolute most gullible would be the initial believers. or the immediate family like in smith and mohammed’s case.
It’s impossible to predict the future. We consider astrology to be superstitious. YET, we accept it’s repeated useage in the new testament.
let’s face a couple of facts. People of this era were highly superstitious. They interconnected Math, science, astronomy and astrology. They believed in the magic of “numerology”.
Do you think any modern christian would look at an astrological forecast and not be skeptical? Why not be skeptical of it’s uses in the bible?
oh, and one final thing from this post. Read the front of the book of mormon. Notice they are WITNESSES, not just followers.
I ascribe meaning from the myth, present in all culture. The similiarity is simply do to the similiar nature of our lives. we’re born, we go through chilhood, teenage years, the period of tribulation and tests, you pass or fail such tests, you have to sacrifice yourself for something, and then you die.
The problem is as follows:
we should not look at myths of the mystery as facts
we should not believe in relative truth. There are greater and lesser truths. There are also falsehoods, and false teachers.
Now, that is similiar to what previous “prophets” have said, the difference is I’m going to tell you something they didn’t. The way to determine if someone is teaching you something false is as follows:
do they want you to follow them and only them.
do they prescribe you look at every idea but the one they teach with a skeptical eye?
The most important thing a teacher can give you is the tool of understanding. Without understanding, you can read a parable or allegory and you’ll interpret it incorrectly… you’ll interpret it literally instead of figuratively. For example, you won’t see the connection between similiar parables.
“And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.”
"1. A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”"
A master student knows what is important to take and apply to life and what is dangerous to apply to life. The application of strict militaristic rules of Zen Buddhism lead to the militarization of Japan. The application of many of Jesus’ and Paul’s sayings lead to many militant christians.
They are either:
Interpreting a parable incorrectly,
Or putting to much faith and power into one portion of their lives.
The eternal skeptic is inside of us all, and we should take it out more often.
If anything, that’s what I was trying to demonstrate with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All of you (except Illatative) were rightly skeptical of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The question is, can you apply such skepticism to other areas of your life?
thirst, I forgot to address this last night:
I’ve heard the same argument for playing the stupid tax (the state lottery). You have a better chance of winning if you buy a ticket right?
There’s nothing to lose if you believe the outrageous claims and you’ve got everything to gain if they (the 1/5th in this example) are right.
Wrong. Your investment of time is what is at stake. If you spend your time believing the wrong belief you’ve wasted a LARGE investment of your life’s time believing in such a claim. And like the lottery, if you had taken that 10 - 20 dollars a week you threw away on lottery tickets and set it aside into a fund, in 20 years with no interest gained, you’d have roughly 15,000 extra dollars.
Even if you apply a relatively low level of interest from an IRA to that 15,000 dollars for at least 10 years, you could at least double that 15,000 dollars.
Imagine how much extra time you’d have to enjoy and learn to love life without the investment of time and energy wasted to a 80% chance of being wrong?
Here’s another example. If you run across the freeway during rush hour, you have a less than 20% chance that you won’t get hit by a car. Does that make it wise to run across the freeway? Is running across the freeway a behaviour you’d recommend to someone?
The danger of investment is all the more reason to investigate religion all the more skeptically. Hopefully thirst you find some level of skepticism with your belief.
Your original phrasing of the problem of the spaghetti monster was,
When you say 'proof' immediately above, I'm assuming you mean 'evidence', since you make a quantifying statement (as much) and proof is a yes/no thing. And I believe that's what Thirst has been trying to argue against this whole time. You probably don't realize it, but the topmost quote above completely changes the rules and objectives of the debate- there's a huge difference between [i]disproving[/i] the existence of God or the spaghetti monster, which Thirst has not even tried to do, and comparing which of the two has greater [i]evidence[/i] in support of it, which Thirst seems to have done quite well.
Also, can you cite your quote about Nazereth, please?
Well to prove something you need evidence, a cause. Thirst has brought forth alot of biblical evidence for christ which contradicts itself, in his causality and contradicts later religions which use similiar claims.
If you justify christianity using those claims you have to justify the later religions which are based upon such fantastic claims. Mohammed and smith were after all “the last great prophets”.
This is why I also posted a made up “zeus” bible as well below the spaghetti monster. There’s plenty of stories about Zeus and his ilk. But by and large we accept such stories as “mythology” (which they are like the bible).
Thirst has IMO, shown no difference between the flying spaghetti monster, zeus, god, jesus, allah. They’re all unsubstantiated.
Quote from first post:
Do you think that Thirst has proved me wrong? That Paul wasn’t a false prophet like mohammed and smith? That all these religions have similiar sins… the greatest sin is to doubt what I’m telling you.
That Jesus is similiar to other god-sons. Even the Jewish one Samson. Samson’s “birth prophesy” is oft used by christian theologists as a prophesy for jesus.
If Jesus existed, the man we know from the gospels is a pure figment of man’s imaginations run wild.
It’s possible also that Samson and Jonah were real people. It’s unlikely that:
Samson got strength from his hair.
Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
If I told you;
“Jesus gives me strength through my hair. I believe in him, and he infuses me through my hair.”
You’d laugh at me… and rightly so, unless I was telling you a story, and not presenting it as truth.
Thirst,
back to the archealogical evidence against the crucifixion, it wasn’t the amount of time that was the issue, it was the process of hammering the nail in that caused it to “hook” into the cross making removal impossible without sawing the legs off.
The fact is you can’t be “slid off the cross”.
Also, The jewish priests would NOT have held any sort of tribunal on Passover. Pilate would not have released a known murderer so that they could get Jesus on the cross instead.
The whole story of the gospels is so contradictary to reality that you must realize it is just that… a story.
I also think that Robert M. Price is correct in saying that the original gospel writers had no intention of writing a factual account of what actually happened. think of the gospels like this:
Mark
/ |
Matthew John
\ | /
Luke
Mark told the original story, which combined what they knew about Jesus from Paul, other similiar heroes. (Lord Krishna comes to mind) and OT sayings, with apocryphal sayings (the book of enoch anyone?)
Matthew and John were next, Matthew rewrote the story of Mark, improving the grammar, John is more of an eschatological retelling with fewer details about specific events.
Luke redacted the above and retold the story again.
If you (uccisore, thirst, ill) are wondering what interpretation I use it’s completely mythical. There is no way to justify a literal interpretation of the bible. Too many contradictions with reality, and itself.
That and god(whatever you wish to call him today) still isn’t there.
You made some wonderful points, and have provided to me much insight. My post were for you and only you, I was attempting to have you instead of being skeptical, which I would consider to be sort of a midpoint in the levels of existence, realizing that things really arent what they seem, to go beyond this skeptic focus and begin to ascribing meaning to things simply for the sake of growth. I can see more clearly your aims in this post, and I like them. Your more so speaking to those who obtain meaning from life, and getting them to the midpoint of skepticism. Everyone has their purpose. Do you understand what Im saying, my thoughts seem scattered, but they make sense to me. But as I said before, Im not speaking for myself.
I’d like to add an interesting note to the “nazareth” discussion here. The bible itself answers the problem.
first judges 18:27 Then they took what Micah had made, and his priest, and went on to Laish, against a peaceful and unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. 28 There was no one to rescue them because they lived a long way from Sidon and had no relationship with anyone else. The city was in a valley near Beth Rehob.
The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. 29 They named it Dan after their forefather Dan, who was born to Israel—though the city used to be called Laish.
then genesis 14:14 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.
two possibilities (which also apply for the story of jesus, abram like jesus may be based upon a real person, it’s more likely what we know of him is all mythological though.)
the story of Abraham was written after the Danites siezed Laish.
the story of Abraham was Redacted after the Danites siezed Laish.
so at the very least you can use that as a defense for the term “nazareth” in the story of jesus. It’s either a redaction, or proves the stories were written much later. (whenever the town of Japha, was changed to be called Nazareth.)
JesusNeverExisted Dot Com? Okey Dokey. Didn’t you, maybe a week ago, give me a hard time for citing studies from Narth, and critically deconstruct their mission statement for bias? Didn’t I warn you at the time that that was an extremely hypocritical gesture, considering your favored citations in religious discussion? There are plenty of non-biased websites out there about archaeology, even a few that specialize in the biblical era, and many of them you could use to support some of the things you are claiming. None of them, though, would endore a claim that “Jesus never existed”.
And which of these does the Spaghetti Monster fall under? By diverting the discussion to things like Islam, which actually a robust history of it’s own, are you backing off from the claim that Jesus has no more evidence behind His existence than this pasta deity? You guys are discussing the nuts and bolts of Gospel historicism, but really it’s a lot simpler than that. “1000 years ago, many people believed that Jesus was God” is evidence, more than the pasta monster has.
If you don't believe him, then he hasn't proven you wrong. However, I believe that he's presented adequate evidence, yes. Perhaps not enough to elevate Paul above Muhammed, but certainly above um, whoever thought Zeus was cool.
You seem here, to be saying that questioning one’s views and exposing oneself to contrary opinions and evidence is a virtue. How well do you feel you have demonstrated this virtue so far?
It would be helpful if you provided the names of those scholars.
) saw Jesus. There is a difference between believing that Mohammed went into a cave (WHERE THERE WERE NO WITNESSES) and believing the actual witnesses themselves.