Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 302
  1. #101
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Jim Jones, do you know what necessarily true means?

  2. #102
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    If you admit that 'Jesus The Christ actually existed then you would have to buy that he performed miracles. That is why he is called 'Jesus The Christ' - because he was allegedly the son of a god who performed miracles and came back to life after being killed. Now if you are referring to Yeshua ben Yosef of 'the historical Jesus' fame then do not refer to that person as 'Jesus Christ'. You, like one or two others here, appear not to understand the difference between Jesus The Christ of Bible fame and the term 'historical Jesus'.
    I'm perfectly able to agree with the ground rule of not using "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus The Christ" when referring to what I believe there is historical evidence for.
    I refer to the historical man named Jesus who had a small cult following which gradually grew into what we call Christianity today. That man we know, was crucified after being condemned by Pontius Pilate.

    That much I think can safely be believed and it's well supported by scholarly research without any kind of religious bias. Also, believing that much, and not more, is quite possible without also believing in all the miracles he performed or that he was/is the Son of God.

    Dancing around the issue and opening up all kinds of possibilities and theories is interesting, but it all comes down to the merits of each of these theories and how they are viewed in academic circles.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  3. #103
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    And here we are - if you have nothing to add then you should let the discussion take its course...
    ...except that the current direction of this thread isn't its course. The opening post itself has been challenged and has not been even remotely supported. The gaps in the opening post have not even been remotely addressed; no one has even attempted to address them. That's the only problem I've had with this thread; a lazy opening post. Otherwise I'm very sympathetic to the problems associated with the historical Jesus.

  4. Likes MindTrap028, Freund liked this post
  5. #104
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    C'mon brother! You're not unintelligent. You don't need me to explain what the word 'verifiable' means.
    Historians use verifiable evidence in their decision, yet they have come up with a vastly different conclusion than you.
    And your repeated straw-man of their standard (IE da-bible) as though historians are all Christians, is so off base that I am forced to ask what standard you are using.


    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Jesus 1. Jesus The Christ. A character found in the New Testament Gospel stories. He is alleged to be the son of a god who came to Earth for the benefit of man's salvation. He is alleged to have performed amazing miracles the like of which the world hadn't seen before of since. Executed by crucifixion but came back to life three days later. Now said to be residing in a place called 'Heaven'.

    Jesus 2. Yeshua ben Yosef - known today as 'the historical Jesus'. An itinerant rebel rabbi and political agitator who wandered around Palestine in the 1st century CE. An outspoken critic of the religious and political system of the day. Arrested (probably for sedition) tried, condemned to death and executed. It is thought by some today that his followers could have formed a sect that hugely exaggerated what he did and said, even turning him into a god. That sect eventually became the religion of Christianity.
    So,
    1) Jesus who WAS in fact the son of God
    2) Jesus the man who it was said and believed by others to be the son of God.

    That summs up your distinction.
    History says the latter, and christians say both.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    I hope that clears things up and ends the confusion here. The 'Jesus' that we are referring to here is Jesus The Christ, son of the god Yahweh, miracle man who came back to life after execution. (which I write as JtC). So, when you say that most historians agree that Jesus existed, are you referring to Jesus 1 or Jesus 2?
    Sop then your question is poorly worded.
    Your not objecting to Jesus' existence, you are objecting to the truth value of some of the events of his life.

    You can't really act like they are two separate people being discussed. No one here has forwarded that historians hold Jesus as the son of God as a historical fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    It is you that is making the claim so it for you to support the claim. Show that the 'most historians' that you speak of are not Christian Bible historians.
    You actually answered the challenge.. so moving on.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Somehow, I don't think you would accept ANY standard that conflicted with your Christian beliefs
    Because you know me so well?
    I'm thinking hasty generalization.. believe what you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    The standard of evidence we seek is verifiable - as it always should be in all matters. Verifiable evidence is evidence that is non-subjective, objective - undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; capable of being tested by experiment or observation; confirmable, falsifiable; empirical; provable; demonstrable; testable; not romantic notions based on emotion but verifiable fact.
    Well, assuming the distinction you are making is as I laid out.
    Even assuming the truth of some of the events in Jesus' life, we should not expect any "verifiable, testable" evidence.

    Such as the feeding the 5k. What verifiable evidence would be left from such an event? .. Non.

    So the question becomes an unreasonable objection to the truth of that event. It's like applying the wrong field of studdy to the event.
    If we judge all history by those terms then we have very little access to history at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Of course the Gospels have to be rejected!! We don't even know who wrote them and you want to use them as evidence?? They are 'evidence' of course but not verifiable evidence. The gospel authors, whoever they were, were propagating religious beliefs not unbiased historical information. If you think that it's acceptable to use the Bible as evidence for JtC, do you also think it's acceptable to use the Bhagavad Gita as evidence for Dhritarashtra or Lord Krishna???
    Tell that to historians, and I don't mean bible scholars.
    You are not throwing the bible out on valid historical terms, you are doing so because of your emotional aversion to them.

    Or do you think that historians don't consider the walls of the pyramids to glean historical facts?
    And my answer is yes, we can gather some historical facts/evidence from even accept works of fiction.
    That is why historians don't throw those things away.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    So I'm unreasonable because I demand evidence that can be verified. I don't think so. After all, it's what you do in every other aspect of your everyday life other than when it comes to religion. If some dude came to your door and asked you for a large some of money and promised to invest it in scheme that would give you a ten-fold increase in your investment, would you just hand the money over - or would you be asking for some kind of verifiable evidence the the investment was kosher? Yet when I ask for verifiable evidence I'm being unreasonable!
    Yet your standard is not the one used by an entire field of study.. imagine that.
    You are of course free to reject all history because it doesn't fit your laboratory science standards, that is not the standard shared by reasonable people in regards to history though.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Because mathematicians and scientists work with verifiable evidence that can be shown, by various methods, to be true. Bible scholars rely on a collection of stories called 'The Holy Bible' that have been proven to be little more than fable fiction and fraud - that's why.
    historians, not simply bible scholars. You fallaciously lump them all together, as though the bible is not a serious topic in history.
    That betrays your bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Explained above. You need to grasp what 'historians' the article is referring and what is meant by 'historical Jesus'
    It isn't referring to the religious bible scholars alone.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. Thanks theophilus thanked for this post
  7. #105
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    So I'm unreasonable because I demand evidence that can be verified?
    Do you intellectually and honestly want evidence of the Spirit, miracles in the Bible, the Son of God? Or will you only consider evidence that is biased, narrow, and strictly falls within a materialistic framework?

    If you honestly want evidence of the Spirit, miracles and the Son of the God, written about in the Bible, what method are you using to determine their authenticity?

    Btw, we're moving toward a universe that is immaterial-mental and spiritual.

    "Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” – R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University , “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)
    http://www.cosmosportal.org/view/blog/137290/
    Last edited by eye4magic; December 31st, 2014 at 05:05 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #106
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Historians use verifiable evidence in their decision...
    Historians do yes. Bible historians tend to rely on what the Bible says.

    ...yet they have come up with a vastly different conclusion than you.
    No, mainstream historians think the same as me.

    So,
    1) Jesus who WAS in fact the son of God
    2) Jesus the man who it was said and believed by others to be the son of God.

    That summs up your distinction.
    History says the latter, and christians say both.
    Don't quite understand you point here. Could you be more specific please?

    Sop then your question is poorly worded.
    I don't think so. My question is simple enough. You claim that most historians think that Jesus existed. I'm simply asking you which Jesus do you think most historians think existed - Jesus The Christ as described in the Gospel stories or Jesus the wandering rabbi? What do you find difficult about the question? For me, I think that those that believe in the existence of Jesus the Christ are Bible scholars. Those that believe in the existence of a non divine political/religious agitator character are mainstream historians.

    Your not objecting to Jesus' existence, you are objecting to the truth value of some of the events of his life.
    I'm saying that I am more than happy to accept the possible existence of an itinerant rabbi and political/religious agitator who was not divine, did no magic tricks or miracles, who was executed for sedition, who gained a small following of a few dozen people who, after his death, fabricated his life and eventually claimed that he was a god. I do not accept the Jesus The Christ as described in the Bible.

    You can't really act like they are two separate people being discussed.
    So if they are not different then you would either have to accept that the historical Jesus was divine or you will have to accept that the Bible stories of Jesus The Christ are fabricated lies because the descriptions of them are different. Which do you chose?

    No one here has forwarded that historians hold Jesus as the son of God as a historical fact.
    Excellent! So you at last concede that the 'Jesus' that you claim historians believe existed is not the divine son of a god Jesus The Christ of the Gospel stories. We reach consensus at last!

    Because you know me so well? I'm thinking hasty generalization.. believe what you want.
    Well would you? If I could prove conclusively that the Bible stories of a Jesus character were false, would you abandon you belief in a divine Jesus The Christ?

    Well, assuming the distinction you are making is as I laid out.
    Even assuming the truth of some of the events in Jesus' life, we should not expect any "verifiable, testable" evidence.
    Why not?? Let us assume that the Gospel stories regarding JtC are true. Do you not think that someone other than four anonymous authors who never even met JtC would have recorded all or even some of the mind-boggling miracles said to have happened. Don't you think that in a world of superstitions and miracles, someone raising people from the dead and walking on water would have garnered country wide interest and would have had writers, recorders and historian flocking in droves to try to find the miracle-man, write about him, record the events. Nobody did! That should strike you as phenomenally odd.

    Such as the feeding the 5k. What verifiable evidence would be left from such an event? .. Non.
    It's not what is left - it's that nobody other than the Gospel authors mentioned an event that, had it been true, would have had hundreds writing about it and recording it. Even if they hadn't actually been there to witness the event, people would have been writing about it as hearsay. Take the alleged darkness at the hour JtC died - an event that must have been witness all over the planet, just like we see an eclipse of the sun over the world - yet nobody anywhere, not one single person in the world seemed to notice this darkness other than one Gospel author. Even the other three Gospel authors appear to have missed this staggeringly important phenomenon. Just like the dead rising from their graves and wandering about the city of Jerusalem, not one historian noticed it, not one Roman soldier, not one politician, not one shopkeeper not one whore standing on a street corner - NOBODY other than one anonymous Gospel author. Are you getting it yet?

    If we judge all history by those terms then we have very little access to history at all.
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Whilst hear-say evidence might be acceptable in some cases, in the case of a man doing miracles and coming back from the dead, it isn't.

    Tell that to historians, and I don't mean bible scholars.
    You are not throwing the bible out on valid historical terms, you are doing so because of your emotional aversion to them.
    I am throwing the Bible out because it has been proven to be largely fable, fiction and fraud.

    Or do you think that historians don't consider the walls of the pyramids to glean historical facts?
    Huh? Not understanding what you are getting at here.

    And my answer is yes, we can gather some historical facts/evidence from even accept works of fiction.
    That's not what I asked you was it? The question was 'If you think that it's acceptable to use the Bible as evidence for JtC, do you also think it's acceptable to use the Bhagavad Gita as evidence for Dhritarashtra or Lord Krishna'? In other words, will you accept that Dhritarashtra existed by the same standards that you accept the existence of JtC? Are you consistent?

    ...and of course we can gather facts from works of fiction. After all, all good novels use snippets of fact. Arthur Conan Doyle set Sherlock Holmes in Baker St. Baker St exists but that does not mean that we have to accept that Holmes existed. The fact that Herod is mentioned in the Bible and he was a real king doesn't mean that JtC was real too.

    Yet your standard is not the one used by an entire field of study.. imagine that.
    Well all I would say to that is - any historian that doesn't use verifiable evidence does not deserve the title of 'historian'.

    You are of course free to reject all history because it doesn't fit your laboratory science standards, that is not the standard shared by reasonable people in regards to history though.
    Actually it is. History must follow verifiable evidence I'm afraid. Claiming that events in history are factual whilst having no verifiable evidence to back up the claim is no better than saying that dragons used to exist and not having any verifiable evidence to back up the claim - reasonable and logical people are not going to accept your claim.


    historians, not simply bible scholars. You fallaciously lump them all together, as though the bible is not a serious topic in history.
    That betrays your bias.
    Look bro. Go back to the link you gave here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

    Look under the heading of 'Existence' and read:
    'Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed...'

    Now go to the heading of 'Evidence for Jesus' and read:
    'There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus, and all the sources we have are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.'

    Now, would you please tell me what sort of serious historian, other than a Bible historian would unquestioningly accept the existence of someone that has no physical or archaeological evidence; where the sources for the existence of the person in question are mainly from a biased source (Gospels); where the biased source (Gospels) have been questioned by many scholars and where few events in those Gospels are universally accepted. Do tell me - what sort of serious historian would buy into that. None worth his salt I say. I put it to you that the majority of contemporary historians that accept the existence of JtC are Bible scholars.

    It isn't referring to the religious bible scholars alone.
    Oh I'm sure it isn't. I'm just disputing your claim that 'most historians' without distinction, accept that JtC existed. I'm more than happy to accept that most if not all Bible historians accept that JtC existed. I'm not prepared to accept your blanket claim that 'most historians' accept that.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Do you intellectually and honestly want evidence of the Spirit, miracles in the Bible, the Son of God?
    Verifiable sources for them other than the Bible would be a start.

    Btw, we're moving toward a universe that is immaterial-mental and spiritual.

    [indent]"Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” – R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University , “The Mental Universe”
    Beam me up Scotty!

    ---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

    Let's put this to bed once and for all. There is NO good, solid, verifiable independent extra- biblical evidence for the existence of a Jesus The Christ - and that my friends is why we have nothing written by him - there was no Jesus The Christ to write anything.
    Last edited by pladecalvo; December 31st, 2014 at 12:31 PM.
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  10. #107
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post
    Verifiable sources for them other than the Bible would be a start.
    Miracles, the Son of God, the Spirit have all been with us throughout the ages. What unbiased, objective, non-materialistic method are you using to determine their authenticity?

    Beam me up Scotty!
    Do you really want to go up higher? This is possible and there is a rigorous and somewhat exacting method to this objective. However, it's not for wimps. Are you brave enough?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  11. #108
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Historians do yes. Bible historians tend to rely on what the Bible says.
    I'm disinclined to accept such a broad dismissal.


    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Don't quite understand you point here. Could you be more specific please?
    That the distinction being made is not relevant enough to say from a historical pov that there are two different people being spoken of.

    The Jesus that all historians accept, is the same one that is called the Christ by Christians and no "main stream" historian will dispute that.
    So no, mainstream historians do not think the same as you, or at least they do not express it in the same manner.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    I don't think so. My question is simple enough. You claim that most historians think that Jesus existed. I'm simply asking you which Jesus do you think most historians think existed - Jesus The Christ as described in the Gospel stories or Jesus the wandering rabbi?
    The bible describes a wondering rabbi.. where is the distinction?

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    What do you find difficult about the question?
    That there is no apparent distinction being made in the question, or not enough to make it a relevant question to historians.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    For me, I think that those that believe in the existence of Jesus the Christ are Bible scholars. Those that believe in the existence of a non divine political/religious agitator character are mainstream historians.
    I'm not going to accept your faith statement as truth on that matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    I'm saying that I am more than happy to accept the possible existence of an itinerant rabbi and political/religious agitator who was not divine, did no magic tricks or miracles, who was executed for sedition, who gained a small following of a few dozen people who, after his death, fabricated his life and eventually claimed that he was a god. I do not accept the Jesus The Christ as described in the Bible.
    First, the fact that you are accepting only the "possibility" of is not the same conclusion that Historians have, so you are out of the main stream.
    Second, the fact that you allow for only a small handful of followers is ridiculous given that you hold him to be important enough to kill. IE internally inconsistent view on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    So if they are not different then you would either have to accept that the historical Jesus was divine or you will have to accept that the Bible stories of Jesus The Christ are fabricated lies because the descriptions of them are different. Which do you chose?
    Clearly a false delimma. The historical view is not inconsentent with the biblical view, it just doesn't go as far.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    So if they are not different then you would either have to accept that the historical Jesus was divine or you will have to accept that the Bible stories of Jesus The Christ are fabricated lies because the descriptions of them are different. Which do you chose?
    and?

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Well would you? If I could prove conclusively that the Bible stories of a Jesus character were false, would you abandon you belief in a divine Jesus The Christ?
    Shoot.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Why not?? Let us assume that the Gospel stories regarding JtC are true. Do you not think that someone other than four anonymous authors who never even met JtC would have recorded all or even some of the mind-boggling miracles said to have happened
    That isn't verification, or testable in a lab.
    What kind of loosy goosy version of verification do you follow?

    What accepting the word of 4 books we currently know isn't enough.. but ahh.. a 5th one, that would do the trick.
    One that of course isn't christian, but attests to the divinity of Christ and his resurrection.
    .. How reasonable of you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Why not?? Let us assume that the Gospel stories regarding JtC are true. Do you not think that someone other than four anonymous authors who never even met JtC would have recorded all or even some of the mind-boggling miracles said to have happened
    Right, because we have so many personal journals from that time as it is.. paper last forever you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    It's not what is left - it's that nobody other than the Gospel authors mentioned an event that, had it been true, would have had hundreds writing about it and recording it. Even if they hadn't actually been there to witness the event, people would have been writing about it as hearsay. Take the alleged darkness at the hour JtC died - an event that must have been witness all over the planet, just like we see an eclipse of the sun over the world - yet nobody anywhere, not one single person in the world seemed to notice this darkness other than one Gospel author. Even the other three Gospel authors appear to have missed this staggeringly important phenomenon. Just like the dead rising from their graves and wandering about the city of Jerusalem, not one historian noticed it, not one Roman soldier, not one politician, not one shopkeeper not one whore standing on a street corner - NOBODY other than one anonymous Gospel author. Are you getting it yet?
    Yea, I get it. You do not recognize that the single most evidenced event in history with existent copies of books recording it.. isn't enough you expected more.

    I think you lack perspective of the historically significance of even the existence of the books we do have, and in such great number.
    You are actually fooled into thinking that such existence is common.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Whilst hear-say evidence might be acceptable in some cases, in the case of a man doing miracles and coming back from the dead, it isn't.
    The double standard montra of the unreasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    I am throwing the Bible out because it has been proven to be largely fable, fiction and fraud
    SUPPORT?

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Huh? Not understanding what you are getting at here.
    Well, you seem to be tossing out the bible as being a fraud and fiction not relevant to anything historical and not capable of conveying historical truths
    probably because they contain miracles and the spiritual.
    So surely you feel the same way about any historical study of the Egyptian tombs and crypts, covered with their talk of river god's and what not.
    Nothing to see here, move along archaeologists/historians.

    of course my point is that your wrong and historians don't hold your view.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    That's not what I asked you was it? The question was 'If you think that it's acceptable to use the Bible as evidence for JtC, do you also think it's acceptable to use the Bhagavad Gita as evidence for Dhritarashtra or Lord Krishna'? In other words, will you accept that Dhritarashtra existed by the same standards that you accept the existence of JtC? Are you consistent?

    ...and of course we can gather facts from works of fiction. After all, all good novels use snippets of fact. Arthur Conan Doyle set Sherlock Holmes in Baker St. Baker St exists but that does not mean that we have to accept that Holmes existed. The fact that Herod is mentioned in the Bible and he was a real king doesn't mean that JtC was real too.
    Then you concede that we can use the bible to find historical facts, as a valid form of historical study?

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Well all I would say to that is - any historian that doesn't use verifiable evidence does not deserve the title of 'historian'.
    Your opinion is noted, I'll wire the colleges immediately of your ruling.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Actually it is. History must follow verifiable evidence I'm afraid.
    Whatever that means anyway. Your standard is apparently vastly different then the professionals.
    Thanks for voicing your opinion though.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    ook bro. Go back to the link you gave here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

    Look under the heading of 'Existence' and read:
    'Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed...'

    Now go to the heading of 'Evidence for Jesus' and read:
    'There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus, and all the sources we have are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.'

    Now, would you please tell me what sort of serious historian, other than a Bible historian would unquestioningly accept the existence of someone that has no physical or archaeological evidence; where the sources for the existence of the person in question are mainly from a biased source (Gospels); where the biased source (Gospels) have been questioned by many scholars and where few events in those Gospels are universally accepted. Do tell me - what sort of serious historian would buy into that. None worth his salt I say. I put it to you that the majority of contemporary historians that accept the existence of JtC are Bible scholars.
    Well, apparently all of them but you.
    Which means that your standard is not theirs and that you are dismissing evidence that they are (by their honest appraisal) forced to accept.

    So you discredit yourself. Your view is not shared, I don't know the reasons I'm not a professional.
    I have no reason to accept your assertion that it is limited to bible scholars, the link includes them all.
    So unless you have some evidence, your opinion is again noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by PLAD
    Oh I'm sure it isn't. I'm just disputing your claim that 'most historians' without distinction, accept that JtC existed. I'm more than happy to accept that most if not all Bible historians accept that JtC existed. I'm not prepared to accept your blanket claim that 'most historians' accept that.
    I offer evidence, you offer doubt.
    when you have something better then we can discuss it further. Until then the matter is settled.
    Jesus(the man reference in the bible) existed, and all but the most extreme and out of the mainstream accept such as truth.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  12. #109
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo View Post

    Jesus The Christ is NOT almost universally accepted by historians to have existed - only by Bible historians. The historical Jesus IS considered to have been a possibility.
    A "possibility"? Jesus of Nazareth lived, was crucified, and died. That is a historical fact written about by a first century historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

    If you want to dispute whether he was the Son of God, rose again and ascended into heaven, fine, even though that is irrelevant to this thread. But claiming that there is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed, just because you dispute his qualities or his title, is childish and non-productive.

    If someone argued at length that referring to Alexander The Great instead of saying Alexander III of Macedonia was confusing because historians disputed how great he was, wouldn't you think the person had a screw loose?
    Last edited by evensaul; December 31st, 2014 at 09:17 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  13. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  14. #110
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Sorry, but the 'too busy' argument has already been used. It doesn't work because he is a deity who can perform miracles and have full knowledge of the best way to preserve his legacy. He most certainly could find the time - he wasn't busy every single day and even if he was, he could have had someone else scribe for him as he dictated. That there are no words directly from him is troubling for his existence.
    There's a few problems with this counter-argument. Firstly, arguing "Because he's a deity then..." on the issue of writing is no different than you ultimately arguing, "Well if he was a deity, then he either wouldn't have died when crucified, or wouldn't need to or..." something else. Christ was fully God, but also fully MAN. He had to eat, sleep, poop, etc. Arguing that a lack of available time based on his deity is stonewalling an otherwise decent discussion for no real reason. Even here, your argument that "because he's a deity" can ultimately be used as THE central argument against ANY issue you have with Christianity. "If he's a deity, why bother GOING to the different cities and instead just booming his voice to them? Why bother dying when he could show his power over life and death by surviving what killed others?" etc and so forth. As a counterpoint is effectively useless.

    Or really, worse than that, because it's assuming the legitimacy of one point to prove the illegitimacy of another, related, point. See, your argument that his being too busy not making sense because he's a deity only works IF we assume the legitimacy of the position that he WAS/IS God. If he was/is God, then ultimately it doesn't matter WHY he didn't write because the fact still remains then that he's God and he can do whatever he wants, however he wants. So either he was God, and it therefore doesn't matter WHY he didn't write, or even how you think it would be better if he did. Or he wasn't God, and then it STILL doesn't matter why he didn't write because if he wasn't God then he was just some crazy guy wandering around telling people he was.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Not at all, if Jesus wrote something, it would have changed everything - the four gospels would most certainly be placed in a different context.
    And if Jesus did write, and did claim to perform miracles, you'd take treat that as a genuine firsthand account of a real person? Or do you want to give me the honest answer?
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  15. #111
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    There's a few problems with this counter-argument. Firstly, arguing "Because he's a deity then..." on the issue of writing is no different than you ultimately arguing, "Well if he was a deity, then he either wouldn't have died when crucified, or wouldn't need to or..." something else. Christ was fully God, but also fully MAN. He had to eat, sleep, poop, etc. Arguing that a lack of available time based on his deity is stonewalling an otherwise decent discussion for no real reason. Even here, your argument that "because he's a deity" can ultimately be used as THE central argument against ANY issue you have with Christianity. "If he's a deity, why bother GOING to the different cities and instead just booming his voice to them? Why bother dying when he could show his power over life and death by surviving what killed others?" etc and so forth. As a counterpoint is effectively useless.
    Good catch! I was using the theist '...because God' style of reasoning to see how it works out. It's certainly convenient and flexible - it is little wonder it has been used extensively as a 'defense' throughout this thread. And you are also correct to point out that it does end discussions a little bit so perhaps no-one should use it?

    However, being FULLY God & fully man, is the same kind of argument - you'd claim his sacrifice is meaningful since he was a man, but when taken from the perspective of a deity, it isn't much at all: an infinitesimal bit of pain for an eternity of his existence. When it is pointed out that dead people do not come back to life, you invoke the God aspect.

    When challenged for evidence, history is invoked; yet somehow the miracles are only the purview of the Bible and, according to one poster, immune from any proof at all! Somehow the minor accounts in history is enough to prove Jesus Christ (+miracles) existed but the lack of evidence for the miracles is glossed over. That said, no one has yet linked the Jesus of 'history' with The Christ either - it's filled in with another 'because God' argument - the God of the Gaps.

    Having your cake and eating it whenever you want (when it's convenient for him to be a 'man' in order to repel some questions and then as a deity in order to prove he isn't a man), appears to be how this debate has been conducted from all the theists here.

    What's good for the goose must be good for the gander. I am using the same kind of strategy - to be admonished for it is quite ironic. To use the same kind of argument in said admonishment is irony squared!


    Or really, worse than that, because it's assuming the legitimacy of one point to prove the illegitimacy of another, related, point. See, your argument that his being too busy not making sense because he's a deity only works IF we assume the legitimacy of the position that he WAS/IS God. If he was/is God, then ultimately it doesn't matter WHY he didn't write because the fact still remains then that he's God and he can do whatever he wants, however he wants. So either he was God, and it therefore doesn't matter WHY he didn't write, or even how you think it would be better if he did. Or he wasn't God, and then it STILL doesn't matter why he didn't write because if he wasn't God then he was just some crazy guy wandering around telling people he was.
    I am arguing from the point of view of Christianity is true in this thread, so these are fair questions: surely a deity should be doing deity-like things?

    To your point, if he wasn't God or didn't exist or not literate are perfectly reasonable answers; as reasonable as your 'because God'. And probably more so since in order for Jesus to be true then so must a whole host of things that are equally as unlikely as Jesus (the) Christ existing.

    Usually, the simpler answer is better. In this case, Jesus not really existing fits all available evidence.

    And if Jesus did write, and did claim to perform miracles, you'd take treat that as a genuine firsthand account of a real person?
    That would prove the existence of a historical Jesus much more definitively than what is being claimed by others! And that is why the OP is so great - why does an all knowing God choose the worst method of getting his point across, as evidenced by the multitude of conflicting sects?

    However, the same argument about the lack of support for the miracles would still apply - that the Jesus Christ the miracle worker does not exist. No matter what he claims - there still needs to be corroborating evidence. So whilst we'd have proof of a man who claims to be a deity, he still isn't.

    Or do you want to give me the honest answer?
    At the end of the day, it would be much more honest for theists to admit there is zero evidence for their deity-cum-man-cum-deity and that they take it on all on Faith.

    To pretend otherwise, that there is evidence, is getting everyone twisted in knots in order to prove what is ultimately unprovable: Jesus Christ doesn't exist except in the minds of Christians. No one else believes it to be true; not atheists, not theists of other religions and even some Christians don't believe in the miracles either!
    Last edited by JimJones8934; December 31st, 2014 at 10:30 PM.

  16. #112
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    At the end of the day, it would be much more honest for theists to admit there is zero evidence for their deity-cum-man-cum-deity and that they take it on all on Faith.
    Would you like to answer Mr. Hyde's question or at the end of the day does it really matter to you or the OP writer if Jesus personally wrote a journal?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  17. #113
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Would you like to answer Mr. Hyde's question or at the end of the day does it really matter to you if Jesus personally wrote a journal?
    I already did from multiple angles - what did I miss?

    And will you accordingly admit that you have no evidence for Jesus the Christ and that you only have Faith?

  18. #114
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    402
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by sonofnietzsche View Post
    This post makes a simple assertion: Jesus should have written down his thoughts, his creed, his instructions, etc.

    The story is a good one. Something about the story of a fallen hero, a hero with supernatural ancestry, sent to earth to save the humans. The crushing, maiming and murdering of The Christ should fascinate, enthrall and inspire readers of any theistic or atheistic ilk.

    Especially if you read the story all the way to the end. Too often, Hollywood portrays the moments after Christ's Resurrection as The End of The Story.

    To do so leaves out the best part of the story...

    Dr. HAHA Lung, author of assorted works on Mind Control and War Strategy, often reminds the reader: "Before Nietzsche, philosophy was only philosophy... after Nietzsche, philosophy became dangerous."

    Throughout his career, Friedrich Nietzsche had much to say about Christianity.

    But enough of Nietzsche. There will be plenty of time to discuss Nietzsche, and set the record straight.

    For now, the simple assertion is that Jesus should have written down his thoughts. In fact, he should have kept a sort of life's journal.

    Why?

    Because, such a story of glory deserves to be told accurately. It should be told by the hero, by the man who bled and shed sweat and tears to climb up out of the abyss and rise with the light.
    How does getting crucified help anybody? if you need to make such a big deal, as an omnipotent god, then you are crazy.

    ---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:19 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I already did from multiple angles - what did I miss?

    And will you accordingly admit that you have no evidence for Jesus the Christ and that you only have Faith?
    They have found Jesus's remains, i saw it on history channel. his name was engraved on the tomb stone, of course, with other things too. around him was more evidence.
    !! Servant of Gaia !!

  19. #115
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Miracles, the Son of God, the Spirit have all been with us throughout the ages.
    Really! Then it is for you to provide evidence for them isn't it.


    Do you really want to go up higher? This is possible and there is a rigorous and somewhat exacting method to this objective. However, it's not for wimps. Are you brave enough?
    Nah! I just want a quite life at my age.

    ---------- Post added at 07:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That the distinction being made is not relevant enough to say from a historical pov that there are two different people being spoken of.

    The Jesus that all historians accept, is the same one that is called the Christ by Christians and no "main stream" historian will dispute that.
    So what you are saying here is that historians who believe in a Jesus believe in the Jesus of the Bible - Jesus the Christ, the son of Yahweh, the one that walked on water and brought the dead back to life, the one that was executed and now lives in a place called Heaven? It that really what you are saying because if it is I'll not waste any more time on discussing it with you. I'll await your answer before responding to anything else in your post.


    That there is no apparent distinction being made in the question, or not enough to make it a relevant question to historians.
    The question was nothing to do with historians. The question was regarding your insistence that the Bible was valid evidence for the existence of JtC and I will repeat it for the third time. 'If you think that it's acceptable to use the Bible as evidence for JtC, do you also think it's acceptable to use the Bhagavad Gita as evidence for Dhritarashtra or Lord Krishna'? Please answer THAT particular question. It is not a difficult question. It requires nothing more than a yes or no.

    I'll await your answer to my first point before I respond further.

    ...and let's clarify what I'm asking just said so that you will understand it...

    You are claiming that - most historians believe that there was once a time when the son of a god came to Earth, performed incredible miracle including walking on water and raising people from the dead and then got himself killed but came back to life and is now alive and well and living in a place called heaven with his dad Yahweh.

    Is THAT your claim??




    ---------- Post added at 07:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    A "possibility"? Jesus of Nazareth lived, was crucified, and died. That is a historical fact written about by a first century historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
    Oh please! Not Tacitus again! Please go to post #77 and read.

    If you want to dispute whether he was the Son of God, rose again and ascended into heaven, fine, even though that is irrelevant to this thread. But claiming that there is no evidence that Jesus Christ existed, just because you dispute his qualities or his title, is childish and non-productive.
    Jesus Christ IS the one in the Bible. The one that performed miracles, the one that was supposed to be the son of the god Yahweh, the one that was allegedly executed and came back to life.

    ...and if you think that there is verifiable evidence for the existence of a Jesus that I challenge you to produce it - and don't bother with either Josephus or Tacitus. They have been debunked enough already. Produce your evidence please.

    If someone argued at length that referring to Alexander The Great instead of saying Alexander III of Macedonia was confusing because historians disputed how great he was, wouldn't you think the person had a screw loose?
    There is a vast difference. In this case, the one Jesus one is alleged to be divine god and the other Jesus isn't. That's why it's important to ascertain which one we are talking about.

    ---------- Post added at 07:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan View Post
    They have found Jesus's remains, i saw it on history channel. his name was engraved on the tomb stone, of course, with other things too. around him was more evidence.
    Aaaaaahahaha! I hope not - for the sake of all Christians around the world. That would put the cat amongst the pigeons!
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  20. #116
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    does it really matter to you or the OP writer if Jesus personally wrote a journal?
    Just to also clarify here, yes it does matter. Much more so than theists apparently, atheists would like some direct first hand evidence of a human/deity. We don't get to magic away that there is no evidence for Jesus, never mind his supposed journal. We don't get to ignore that even this supposed 'historical Jesus' shares many of the same qualities as other religious figures and how those kinds of people do so for their own gain.

    We haven't undertaken a lifetime of indoctrination and training in order to be satisfied with "because God"-type of answers and we are not credulous of all the hundreds of additional claims, many of which are more questionable than the OP, that are required to support those kinds of conclusions. We do not possess the faith that is required to ignore the entirety of science and the holes in the corroborative history in order to make sense of this question. So when the question is posed, it is one worth exploring. The glib answers from theists are unsatisfactory and non-explanatory and implausible, so we reach to the question of Jesus' existence in order to answer it and to shed light on the thinking behind the poor answers.

    It is a little insulting that you don't think it is important to us given the amount of time spent on this thread. On the contrary, it is of immense and vital importance in understanding how most of our countrymen make decisions on what is real and plausible and whether they can be honest regarding their reasons for believing in the things they do. How the reasoning process is articulated, stripped of the evasions and hidden double-meanings, provides a great deal of insight as to how theists approach reality when it conflicts with or denies or doesn't support their religiously held views.

    And that is important because of how political actions take their cue from a Christian moral viewpoint or a Christian world-view. After all, if 'because God' is sufficient not to worry about the future of our planet, yet more than sufficient to deny gay people equality, for some Christians, - then as a concerned human, very much vested in keep our species around, it would be better to enforce a world where we ALL base our decisions on evidence and the rule of law and not on faith alone. Yet here and elsewhere, Christians deny their faith and insist on using reason; but when that reason turns out to be also faith, our honesty is challenged!

    So yes, it matters. Now - will you admit you have no evidence for Jesus, only faith?
    Last edited by JimJones8934; December 31st, 2014 at 11:25 PM.

  21. Likes pladecalvo liked this post
  22. #117
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Does anyone here know what necessarily true means? Or why there are so many off-topic posts?

    As far as I'm concerned, the OP's argument has long been abandoned, and for good reason--it's logically untenable.

  23. #118
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    ]Does anyone here know what necessarily true means?
    I'll have a stab. Something is necessarily true if it is true and cannot possibly be false???



    Or why there are so many off-topic posts?
    Why are discussions about the existence of JtC off topic? The search is to find out why JtC appears not to have written anything.That he did not exist would give the answer.
    Jesus is unbelievable!

  24. #119
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo
    I'll have a stab. Something is necessarily true if it is true and cannot possibly be false???
    That is it, yes! A necessarily true proposition is a proposition that is true and cannot possibly be false. Now put it in context of the OP. The OP (it is assumed here, again it still hasn't been clarified after all this time) presents the following:

    Premise: Due to the deserving nature of Jesus' story, it is necessarily the case that Jesus would have written something down.
    Conclusion: Since Jesus did not write something down, it is necessarily the case that Jesus did not exist.

    Can you (or anyone for that matter) demonstrate:

    1. That the premise above is a necessarily true claim
    2. That the conclusion is necessarily the antithesis of the premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by pladecalvo
    Why are discussions about the existence of JtC off topic? The search is to find out why JtC appears not to have written anything.That he did not exist would give the answer.
    The discussion here surrounding "did Jesus exist" does not speak to the OP's argument. The OP does not question Jesus' existence--it asserts that because Jesus didn't write anything down, he didn't exist. If "Jesus didn't write anything down" cannot be demonstrated to be a necessary truth and "Jesus didn't exist" cannot be demonstrated to be the necessary antithesis of the premise, then the argument fails.

  25. #120
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Jesus Should Have Written

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    That is it, yes!
    Do I get a prize?




    Can you (or anyone for that matter) demonstrate:

    1. That the premise above is a necessarily true claim
    2. That the conclusion is necessarily the antithesis of the premise.
    Dunno - but what we have demonstrated is, if the alleged omnimax creator of the universe had a message that was so vital to mankind's salvation, he could have thought of a better way for us to get the message than telling a couple of desert goat-herds in the middle of a field - who didn't even bother to write it down until 50 - 90 years after the alleged events - in such a way that resulted in his message being claimed as 'true' by of 3000 different denominations of his followers.
    Jesus is unbelievable!

 

 
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. When was the Bible written?
    By Zenstone in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 7th, 2007, 01:36 PM
  2. My first poem I've written in four years
    By RfrancisR in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 28th, 2006, 04:55 AM
  3. The Bible (as written in IRC)
    By Zhavric in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 7th, 2005, 10:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •