Religion

[Mogosagatai]

in order to be religious, you must also be willfully ignorant.

Well, everyone's ignorant of a lot of stuff. A lot of religious folk might not be willfully ignorant but rather accepting of necessary ignorance, and attributing some or all of that necessary ignorance to God.

And then there are those who simply won't face the truth, and yeah, that's really annoying.

[slowRodeo]

blah blah blah personal opinion about others beliefs blah blah blah judgemental elitist crap about how anyone who doesn't believe what i believe is stupid.blah blah blah stuff not based of fact blah blah blah

you've obviously only read about the bible blue.

the bible is historically and scientifically sound. if you dont agree, show me exactly where it isn't. dont give anymore opinions.

Also according to available evidence, the Gospels were written between the years 41 and 98 C.E. Jesus died in the year 33 C.E. This means that the accounts of his life were put together in a comparatively short time after his ministry ended. This poses a tremendous obstacle to the argument that the Gospel narratives are mere legends. Time is needed for legends to develop. Take, for example, the Iliad and the Odyssey. Some hold that the text of those two epic legends developed and became stabilized over hundreds of years.

[blue]

everyone is welcome to all the faith they want - as long as they realize that it is faith, and faith alone. the second anyone gets way from faith and into history, logic, or math, they are only doing themselves and their religion a disservice.

I'm not sure what religion you're referring to, but I don't know of any historical, logical, mathematical, or -heck - scientific conflicts with what I believe.

Complications, maybe. I agree that my faith fills in some blanks, but I'm not actively denying that some observable fact of the world doesn't exist.

-craig

where is the historical evidence of the existence of jesus? of nazareth?

what did jesus look like?

you might not deny observable facts, but you are embracing non-observable facts.

[starfinger]

where is the historical evidence of the existence of jesus? of nazareth?

you mean, other than the gigantic religion?

Why did it take 2000 years for people to start denying that he existed? He had plenty of enemies shortly after his lifetime that didn't think to deny that.

you might not deny observable facts, but you are embracing non-observable facts.

I will agree with that... to the extent that my own personal relationship with Jesus (made possible by the holy spirit) is non-observable.

-craig

[slowRodeo]

Testimony of Historians:

For instance, consider the testimony of Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian who was a Pharisee. He referred to Jesus Christ in the book Jewish Antiquities. Although some doubt the authenticity of the first reference where Josephus mentioned Jesus as the Messiah, Professor Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University says that few have doubted the genuineness of the second reference. There Josephus said: “[Ananus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.â€

[Mogosagatai]

Quoting people with blah blah blahs and the like really makes you look like an ass, Mr. Rodeo.

Reread your "quote" of blue and notice that the three phrases that aren't just blahs are directly applicable to your "quote".

It's natural that people get up in arms in a thread like this, but let's all be reasonable. We're dicussing religion. That means, if someone thinks Religion Z is flawed, ey should say so and give eir reasoning. People who subscribe to Religion Z should not be get up in arms over this, but should instead consider what was said and explain why they disagree (if indeed they do).

Also: Can we get some flames from some of other religions? So far, it seems like just atheists and Christians goin' at it (with bursts of rationale interspersed). Where are the Muslims? The Jews? The Hindus? Speak out!

[slowRodeo]

"Writing in The Union Bible Companion, S. Austin Allibone says: “Sir Isaac Newton . . . was also eminent as a critic of ancient writings, and examined with great care the Holy Scriptures. What is his verdict on this point? ‘I find,’ says he, ‘more sure marks of authenticity in the New Testament than in any profane [secular] history whatever.’ Dr. Johnson says that we have more evidence that Jesus Christ died on Calvary, as stated in the Gospels, than we have that Julius Caesar died in the Capitol. We have, indeed, far more. Ask anyone who professes to doubt the truth of the Gospel history what reason he has for believing that Caesar died in the Capitol, or that the Emperor Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West by Pope Leo III. in 800 . . . How do you know that such a man as Charles I. ever lived, and was beheaded, and that Oliver Cromwell became ruler in his stead? . . . Sir Isaac Newton is credited with the discovery of the law of gravitation . . . We believe all the assertions just made respecting these men; and that because we have historical evidence of their truth. . . . If, on the production of such proof as this, any still refuse to believe, we abandon them as stupidly perverse or hopelessly ignorant. What shall we say, then, of those who, notwithstanding the abundant evidence now produced of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, profess themselves unconvinced? . . . Surely we have reason to conclude that it is the heart rather than the head which is at fault;—that they do not wish to believe that which humbles their pride, and will force them to lead different lives.â€

[slowRodeo]

Quoting people with blah blah blahs and the like really makes you look like an ass, Mr. Rodeo.

Reread your "quote" of blue and notice that the three phrases that aren't just blahs are directly applicable to your "quote".

not what i meant to come across as you can assure yourself of that. I meant it as no different than ... personal opinion ...judgemental elitist crap... stuff not based of fact... just a filler. but i made no judgements personal opinions. well except that blue has probably not read the entire bible. that is an opinion and not based on fact. i believe we are just debating here not fighting.

[blue]

yep, those are the most-quoted references as "historical proof jesus lived." them and the dead sea scroll that mentions a jesus. only one little problem - all of those events occurred after the publication of the gospels, most of them way, way after jesus supposedly died. where is the evidence of his followers during his lifetime? were there no historians alive while he was?

what did he look like? where was nazareth? what did Pliny the Elder have to say about Jesus?

ftr, i do believe that someone named Jesus existed, probably as a buddy of the jewish agitant John. but what i believe isn't important.

i was pretty shocked when i first realized that there is no contemporary historical evidence for the existence of jesus. it's one of those things we hear about all our lives, but it just isn't there.

[Kill Me Sarah]

ftr, i do believe that someone named Jesus existed, probably as a buddy of the jewish agitant John.

So you don't believe the existing evidence that has been mentioned pertaining to the historicity of Jesus, but you believe he existed anyway? If you don't believe any of these references, then what is your basis for believing he was alive?

[blue]

well except that blue has probably not read the entire bible.

what would it change if i had? i'd just. believe it.. because i read it? that doesn't make any sense at all.

have you read all of Dyanetics and the secret manuals of scientology? no? but you think scientology is pretty fucked up, right?

the fact that you're an active member of one of the weirdest christian subcults is a good reason to go ahead and recuse yourself from the argument here. shouldn't you be getting ready for the battle of Har-Magedon?

[blue]

ftr, i do believe that someone named Jesus existed, probably as a buddy of the jewish agitant John.

So you don't believe the existing evidence that has been mentioned pertaining to the historicity of Jesus, but you believe he existed anyway? If you don't believe any of these references, then what is your basis for believing he was alive?

well it does seem like a stretch that he would have been invented in toto. not too much of a stretch, mind you, but a stretch. did Hercules exist? he was the son of god too, and millions of people believed in him for hundreds of years.

but, like i said, what i believe is not at issue. the question is: is there any evidence of his life as recorded during his life? the gospels are not it, all of the stuff rodeo mentioned is not it. where is it?

[HeuristicsInc]

all right, you anti-religious types, let's, uh, try to be a little more tolerant of others' beliefs, please? what i see here is religious types being tolerant and you guys being, honestly, pretty rude.
-bill

you should call people out directly, methinks.

no, sorry, i am not looking to be confrontational directly; i saw what happened there last time
-bill

[Kill Me Sarah]

the question is: is there any evidence of his life as
recorded during his life? the gospels are not it, all of the stuff rodeo mentioned is not it. where is it?

The gospels are written documentation of the life of Jesus written by some of his friends. In a way they are like memoirs, and generally speaking you don't write memoirs about stuff as it's happening. If the gospel according to John had started:

A Memoir of Jesus Christ, by John

Then would it be believable? What would be acceptable evidence for blue?

The problem is a "chicken or the egg" issue, fundamentally. You don't believe the Bible, because you don't believe in God and it would take an act of God to preserve the truth in a written document for thousands of years and keep it internally harmonized despite being penned by some 40 different people. And you don't believe in God because you don't believe the Bible is his written word and it's very hard to understand why God would allow suffering or why the world is in the state it is today if you don't believe the Bible's explanations for such things.

[Edit: the above is an assumption, obviously. I don't know why you personally don't believe in God/the Bible. It may be that or it may be something else. But that's a pretty common reason for someone not to believe in God.]

[blue]

than we have that Julius Caesar died in the Capitol. We have, indeed, far more. Ask anyone who professes to doubt the truth of the Gospel history what reason he has for believing that Caesar died in the Capitol, or that the Emperor Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West by Pope Leo III. in 800 . . . How do you know that such a man as Charles I. ever lived, and was beheaded, and that Oliver Cromwell became ruler in his stead?

all of these people left behind both contemporary historical accounts and physical evidence. jesus has neither. Newton probably didn't realize that the gospels themselves are, at best, second-hand accounts. and why should he? they are certainly written (and interpreted, and multiply edited) to feel as authentic as possible.

[blue]

the question is: is there any evidence of his life as
recorded during his life? the gospels are not it, all of the stuff rodeo mentioned is not it. where is it?

The gospels are written documentation of the life of Jesus written by some of his friends. In a way they are like memoirs, and generally speaking you don't write memoirs about stuff as it's happening. If the gospel according to John had started:

A Memoir of Jesus Christ, by John

Then would it be believable? What would be acceptable evidence for blue?

no! why is this so hard to understand? the bible cannot be a canonical historical reference of itself. do you even understand that Luke and Mark were not even f'ing apostles?! they had _nothing_ to do with the life of Christ!

if you're going to argue the bible, at least know some minimal amount about it.

[Kill Me Sarah]

do you even understand that Luke and Mark were not even f'ing apostles?!

Where did I say they were? I said John was an Apostle. I said the gospels were written by "some of his friends".

Luke probably wasn't included in that group and may not have even believed in Jesus as the messiah until after his death and would not have been an eye-witness of everything he wrote about.

[Kweep]

I know i'm hoppin' in late but just had to coment on this:

[...]The literal words of the bible [...]

I sure hope you are reading it in hebrew, greek and aramaic... for any solely english speaking/reading person to claim anything about the 'literal' words of the bible is going too far. It doesn't matter if you believe the translations were guided by the hand of god or not... it's still been translated (here's an example of why it's important: both eros and agape are translated as love... do YOU know which one is meant for SURE when you read the english word love?)

[blue]

do you even understand that Luke and Mark were not even f'ing apostles?!

Where did I say they were? I said John was an Apostle.

even if you take everything in John that hints that it is he who is writing it, the weight of historical proof would rest on a contemporary outside observer making the same claim.

does it not cause any doubt in your mind that out of the dozens of so-called gospels, only 4, two of which are admittedly hearsay, are included in the NT?

[blue]

everything i've read leads me to believe that John was the last gospel written, and written late enough that it can't possibly have been written by an eyewitness.

here is an excellent site explaining the differences, timeline, and geography of the gospel of john.

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/jnintro.html

also, censorpedia says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship ... nine_works

[Kill Me Sarah]

does it not cause any doubt in your mind that out of the dozens of so-called gospels, only 4, two of which are admittedly hearsay, are included in the NT?

No. Hundreds of people know me personally. I don't expect all of them to write books about me when I die. Not everyone is a writer, different people have different gifts. On the other hand, all of the Apostles did preach about him as they had been instructed to do.

And again, would it make any difference? If there were 8 gospels, or 20, would you believe it then?

[blue]

does it not cause any doubt in your mind that out of the dozens of so-called gospels, only 4, two of which are admittedly hearsay, are included in the NT?

No. Hundreds of people know me personally. I don't expect all of them to write books about me when I die. Not everyone is a writer, different people have different gifts. On the other hand, all of the Apostles did preach about him as they had been instructed to do.

when do you think john wrote the gospel, and do you believe that it is an exact transscription of jesus' words?