scientists try to explain buring bush, parted sea

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]Umm, buddy, there are texts much older than this...try the Hindu Vedas.

ah, so the hindo vedas are automatically older because you believe them to be? or are they older because they have some archeological corroboration older than the dead sea scrolls? I find it interesting how people will scrutinize the Bible to every detail, and then accept anything else very openly

Quote[/b] ]Archaeology Magazine had a great, lengthy article on this last year when it was a hot topic explaining how it was uncovered to be a forgery. If you don't believe me, feel free to do some research. Hell, they found his equipment in his apartment.

Your right, it was fake. I heard about it last year, but nothing afterwards about it being fake, and when I looked for it on the discovery web site, it was there.

Quote[/b] ] Besides, that was not my point. You are the one attempting to definitively explain the workings of the universe, not me.

My point was that your the one who doesn't know how the universe works, but you do know everyone else is wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Well, for one thing, the big bang theory is an actual scientific theory. The big bang theory is falsifiable. The big bang theory can be used to make predictions. The big bang's effects, should it have occured, may be observed.

oh, so because the theory does these things that you want it to, that makes it correct in your eyes, and credible. Science simply means to make known, I don't know why Creation is not "scientificically lagitamate".

Quote[/b] ]What original eye witnesses? Those five hundred who apparently saw Jesus during his forty last days on earth never wrote anything down, that's for sure! Furthermore,lack of the internet is a terrible excuse for a lack of contemporary accounts. Contemporary accounts could very well have been written -- unfortunately for you, they were not. Even supposing he did live, 50 years allows one's mind to elaborate quite a bit, neh?

Why would they write it down? If they did, who would keep it? What contemporary events do you bother to write down? I said lack of internet and printing press. no, its not a terrible excuse, I didn't make this up. Historians know that in that time peroid history was handed down by mouth, but I guess you know something about that time period that thousands of historians don't.

Quote[/b] ]Interesting. Please explain to me, the unenlightened, how the whole "deducing" process went down.

I'm not going to pretend to know from first hand, I never went through the deducing process myself. There are Christian scholors who studied the Bible thier whole lives. They also logically deduced who the authors were, are you going to argue that we don't know who wrote them?

Quote[/b] ]Thaddius, none of those are contemporary accounts

I see why thaddius is angry at you, you are getting stubborn. Tell me, Why would a Historian write about contemporary accounts? All the historians Thaddias mentioned are perfectly lagitamate, but I guess not lagitamate enough for you. Yes, people believe that the writtings of Josephus ,about Jesus, were edited, but not fabricated.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Master~Plan @ Feb. 29 2004,11:34)]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Umm, buddy, there are texts much older than this...try the Hindu Vedas.

ah, so the hindo vedas are automatically older because you believe them to be? or are they older because they have some archeological corroboration older than the dead sea scrolls? I find it interesting how people will scrutinize the Bible to every detail, and then accept anything else very openly

OK, fine, another example. The epic of Gilgamesh was written in cuneiform in 2000 B.C. Cave drawings on walls are also older than the sophisticated hebrew writing of the dead sea scrolls. But regardless, this is simply argumentum ad antiquitatum -- arguing that because something is old, it must be right. This makes no sense.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Archaeology Magazine had a great, lengthy article on this last year when it was a hot topic explaining how it was uncovered to be a forgery. If you don't believe me, feel free to do some research. Hell, they found his equipment in his apartment.

Your right, it was fake. I heard about it last year, but nothing afterwards about it being fake, and when I looked for it on the discovery web site, it was there.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, or conceding that it was fake...

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ] Besides, that was not my point. You are the one attempting to definitively explain the workings of the universe, not me.

My point was that your the one who doesn't know how the universe works, but you do know everyone else is wrong.

And whats your point with that? If I can prove you wrong, that doesn't mean I have to automatically have an answer. All we've done is eliminate one possible answer. I'm not happy with bullshitted answers. If none of the thus-far proposed explanations for the universe are valid, that's perfectly fine.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Well, for one thing, the big bang theory is an actual scientific theory. The big bang theory is falsifiable. The big bang theory can be used to make predictions. The big bang's effects, should it have occured, may be observed.

oh, so because the theory does these things that you want it to, that makes it correct in your eyes, and credible. Science simply means to make known, I don't know why Creation is not "scientificically lagitamate".

Now you're simply rambling. If a theory is consistent with observations, one can logically deduce that the theory has at least some shred of credibility. There is no way for you to make any kind of falsifiable predictions based upon the idea of the spontaneous creation of the earth in six days. If there is, please do so now.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]What original eye witnesses? Those five hundred who apparently saw Jesus during his forty last days on earth never wrote anything down, that's for sure! Furthermore,lack of the internet is a terrible excuse for a lack of contemporary accounts. Contemporary accounts could very well have been written -- unfortunately for you, they were not. Even supposing he did live, 50 years allows one's mind to elaborate quite a bit, neh?

Why would they write it down? If they did, who would keep it? What contemporary events do you bother to write down? I said lack of internet and printing press. no, its not a terrible excuse, I didn't make this up. Historians know that in that time peroid history was handed down by mouth, but I guess you know something about that time period that thousands of historians don't.

Let's quit with the ad hominems. What do you mean "Why would they write it down?" Why would somebody not write down their experience with a resurrected person? It seems to me that you are implying that no writing was ever done concerning contemporary times. Yet, look at that list I posted earlier. #10, Juvenal, wrote satirical criticisms of his times. The Romans were not as primitive as you seem to think them.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Interesting. Please explain to me, the unenlightened, how the whole "deducing" process went down.

I'm not going to pretend to know from first hand, I never went through the deducing process myself. There are Christian scholors who studied the Bible thier whole lives. They also logically deduced who the authors were, are you going to argue that we don't know who wrote them?

Umm, yes, that was exactly what I was implying.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Thaddius, none of those are contemporary accounts

I see why thaddius is angry at you, you are getting stubborn. Tell me, Why would a Historian write about contemporary accounts? All the historians Thaddias mentioned are perfectly lagitamate, but I guess not lagitamate enough for you. Yes, people believe that the writtings of Josephus ,about Jesus, were edited, but not fabricated.

I've already addressed this. Thaddius, for some reason, has never liked me. Maybe it's because I've refuted his argument? Dude, 50-100 years is a lot of time for legends to evolve. Even if Jesus did live, many elaborations may have easily been worked into his "biography". The historians themselves are quite "legitimate" (notice the spelling, please), but your arguments using them to support the existence of Jesus is not.

However, you know what? As interesting and important a topic this is, I'd be willing to let this drop, because there's more than enough goodies to deal with assuming Jesus did exist. So, it's up to you. We can either continue this discussion, or we can pretend he existed for the sake of future arguments. The ball's in your court. Real or fictional, Jesus does not hold his own and is not worthy of worship.

 

[Eon]

Well, the problem i always felt with Jesus was not that he didn't hold his own or wasn't worthy of worship, but more that he was built up to be far more than he actually was.

I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't a metaphorical catchall for a whole group of holymen at work at that time, if perhaps he came to represent the whole of a heretical judaic cult that splintered off to form a religion.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]arguing that because something is old, it must be right. This makes no sense.

no, it doesn't make sense to argue something is right because it is old. I argue the age of the Bible because you claim its all a hoax, so in verifying the age, it becomes increasingly difficult to support your hoax theory. Thats all

Quote[/b] ]I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, or conceding that it was fake...

haha, thats funny. *No, I was conceding that it was fake.* (*indicates no sarcasm used)

Quote[/b] ]And whats your point with that? If I can prove you wrong, that doesn't mean I have to automatically have an answer. All we've done is eliminate one possible answer. I'm not happy with bullshitted answers. If none of the thus-far proposed explanations for the universe are valid, that's perfectly fine.

My point is that you don't know if anyone is wrong, if you don't know the right answer.

Quote[/b] ]Now you're simply rambling. If a theory is consistent with observations, one can logically deduce that the theory has at least some shred of credibility. There is no way for you to make any kind of falsifiable predictions based upon the idea of the spontaneous creation of the earth in six days. If there is, please do so now.

call my arguments what you will, but I was making a point. How is the big bang in any way consistent with any observation? Like it or not, the earth being here is objective. ANY theory of how the earth was made isn't falsifiable because no one was there. The only way to disprove any theory is to disprove the earths existence...

Quote[/b] ]Let's quit with the ad hominems. What do you mean "Why would they write it down?" Why would somebody not write down their experience with a resurrected person? It seems to me that you are implying that no writing was ever done concerning contemporary times. Yet, look at that list I posted earlier. #10, Juvenal, wrote satirical criticisms of his times. The Romans were not as primitive as you seem to think them.

I never made the Romans out to be primitive. There is no such thing, humans have had the same mind capabilities throughout existence. If I see a resurrected dead person, I am going to go and tell everyone what I saw. Did you write down the 9-11 tragedy, or talk about it with your friends?

Quote[/b] ]Umm, yes, that was exactly what I was implying.

thats fine, I can't argue every mute detail with you. I bet you won't accept anything a christian scholor says, so what is there to argue?

Quote[/b] ]The historians themselves are quite "legitimate" (notice the spelling, please), but your arguments using them to support the existence of Jesus is not.

your not makeing sense man, the legitimate historians write about Jesus in thier books. How does that not support the fact that Jesus lived?

Quote[/b] ]However, you know what? As interesting and important a topic this is, I'd be willing to let this drop, because there's more than enough goodies to deal with assuming Jesus did exist.

Oh, what a friend, you'd really be willing to do me a huge favor of "letting this drop"? I think its pretty obstinate to deny the fact that Jesus ever existed. All the differen't books the Bible contains the story his life. Other historians wrote about his life. No historians dissagreed with the historians that said He did live. He has more supporting his existance than many non biblical history figures.

Quote[/b] ](notice the spelling, please)

I'm a horrible speller, sorry

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Master~Plan @ Feb. 29 2004,4:19)]

Quote[/b] ]However, you know what? As interesting and important a topic this is, I'd be willing to let this drop, because there's more than enough goodies to deal with assuming Jesus did exist.

Oh, what a friend, you'd really be willing to do me a huge favor of "letting this drop"? I think its pretty obstinate to deny the fact that Jesus ever existed. All the differen't books the Bible contains the story his life. Other historians wrote about his life. No historians dissagreed with the historians that said He did live. He has more supporting his existance than many non biblical history figures.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]arguing that because something is old, it must be right. This makes no sense.

no, it doesn't make sense to argue something is right because it is old. I argue the age of the Bible because you claim its all a hoax, so in verifying the age, it becomes increasingly difficult to support your hoax theory. Thats all

When did I claim it all to be a hoax? Yes, I acknowledge its existence. I do not acknowledge its divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, or otherwise.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And whats your point with that? If I can prove you wrong, that doesn't mean I have to automatically have an answer. All we've done is eliminate one possible answer. I'm not happy with bullshitted answers. If none of the thus-far proposed explanations for the universe are valid, that's perfectly fine.

My point is that you don't know if anyone is wrong, if you don't know the right answer.

Oh no? Please think about how much that makes sense, and if you still think it does by the time you post again, I'll post some obvious examples that contradict your statement.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Now you're simply rambling. If a theory is consistent with observations, one can logically deduce that the theory has at least some shred of credibility. There is no way for you to make any kind of falsifiable predictions based upon the idea of the spontaneous creation of the earth in six days. If there is, please do so now.

call my arguments what you will, but I was making a point. How is the big bang in any way consistent with any observation? Like it or not, the earth being here is objective. ANY theory of how the earth was made isn't falsifiable because no one was there. The only way to disprove any theory is to disprove the earths existence...

Again, that makes 0 sense. For one thing, the big bang implies that the universe would be expanding, which it is. This is an observance which is in accord with the theory. Now, as for "ANY theory of how the earth was made" is begging the question -- the earth didn't have to be "made". That implies a creator, which is the main issue in this discussion, really.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Let's quit with the ad hominems. What do you mean "Why would they write it down?" Why would somebody not write down their experience with a resurrected person? It seems to me that you are implying that no writing was ever done concerning contemporary times. Yet, look at that list I posted earlier. #10, Juvenal, wrote satirical criticisms of his times. The Romans were not as primitive as you seem to think them.

I never made the Romans out to be primitive. There is no such thing, humans have had the same mind capabilities throughout existence. If I see a resurrected dead person, I am going to go and tell everyone what I saw. Did you write down the 9-11 tragedy, or talk about it with your friends?

I guess you don't know anybody that keeps any kind of journal, or that governments keep records of these sorts of things?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Umm, yes, that was exactly what I was implying.

thats fine, I can't argue every mute detail with you. I bet you won't accept anything a christian scholor says, so what is there to argue?

Wow, let's exaggerate and generalize more, please. I wont accept anything a Christian scholar says? Come on buddy...
What I will not do is simply accept what they say. I will examine it for myself. I do the same with *gasp* atheists' assertions! I've correct atheists for being stupid many times, believe it or not (but not as many times as theists). If the arguments you bring to the table, or you yourself, cannot stand the scrutiny with which I will examine them, then I suggest you get out of the game.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The historians themselves are quite "legitimate" (notice the spelling, please), but your arguments using them to support the existence of Jesus is not.

your not makeing sense man, the legitimate historians write about Jesus in thier books. How does that not support the fact that Jesus lived?

If you read carefully, you'll see that those historians, such as Tacitus, are merely talking about Jesus' followers, the Christians (in what happens to be a contemporary setting! wowzers!), and offhandedly relate that they follow a man who lived previously named Jesus. They're not doing some big bio on Jesus, they're not even giving him a paragraph's worth. They're simply mentioning him because the existence of Christians themselves is undeniable.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]However, you know what? As interesting and important a topic this is, I'd be willing to let this drop, because there's more than enough goodies to deal with assuming Jesus did exist.

Oh, what a friend, you'd really be willing to do me a huge favor of "letting this drop"? I think its pretty obstinate to deny the fact that Jesus ever existed. All the differen't books the Bible contains the story his life. Other historians wrote about his life. No historians dissagreed with the historians that said He did live. He has more supporting his existance than many non biblical history figures.

And so we've arrived back at the very beginning of this debate.....

 

[TastyWheat]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Feb. 29 2004,10:47)]If you read carefully, you'll see that those historians, such as Tacitus, are merely talking about Jesus' followers, the Christians (in what happens to be a contemporary setting! wowzers!), and offhandedly relate that they follow a man who lived previously named Jesus. They're not doing some big bio on Jesus, they're not even giving him a paragraph's worth. They're simply mentioning him because the existence of Christians themselves is undeniable.

What is your opinion on the cause of these people to follow Jesus?



And to all of you: stop with the sarcasm. Though wielded by some of the greatest philosophers and politicians throughout time, it seems that they were all much wiser than any of us. Sarcasm used at age of the majority of the posters on this board is simply a sign of immaturity and clouds decent dialogue.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (TastyWheat @ Feb. 29 2004,6:47)]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Feb. 29 2004,10:47)]If you read carefully, you'll see that those historians, such as Tacitus, are merely talking about Jesus' followers, the Christians (in what happens to be a contemporary setting! wowzers!), and offhandedly relate that they follow a man who lived previously named Jesus. They're not doing some big bio on Jesus, they're not even giving him a paragraph's worth. They're simply mentioning him because the existence of Christians themselves is undeniable.

What is your opinion on the cause of these people to follow Jesus?



And to all of you: stop with the sarcasm. Though wielded by some of the greatest philosophers and politicians throughout time, it seems that they were all much wiser than any of us. Sarcasm used at age of the majority of the posters on this board is simply a sign of immaturity and clouds decent dialogue.

Well, thanks for the question, Tasty. If Jesus existed, then he was one of many people in those days claiming to be the messiah...I'm sure you agree with me there, correct? Perhaps he could even perform magic, like the Egyptian magicians of Exodus, or prophesize like the false prophets spoken of in the Old Testament. Really, there are a number of reasons they could follow him, depending also on the accuracy of the gospel accounts of his life. Finally, what does any person who is followed nowadays have? Charisma is certainly an asset, as are power and money, both of which Jesus, as shown in the gospels, did not have much of, so perhaps he was rich in charisma?

If he did not exist, then there are any number of ways he could have come about. Rumors, perhaps, or exaggerations and combinations of a bunch of people living at that time (such as the aforementioned false messiahs). There's really any number of views we could take, some certainly more credible than others, some simply too far-fetched. I guess that's our job, then, as people living today and examining Christianity - to figure out whether or not Jesus lived, and if he did, whether or not he was who the gospel writers say he claimed to be.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]When did I claim it all to be a hoax? Yes, I acknowledge its existence. I do not acknowledge its divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, or otherwise.

if there is not divine inspiration, it is a hoax. If Jesus never lived, its a hoax.

Quote[/b] ]Again, that makes 0 sense. For one thing, the big bang implies that the universe would be expanding, which it is. This is an observance which is in accord with the theory. Now, as for "ANY theory of how the earth was made" is begging the question -- the earth didn't have to be "made". That implies a creator, which is the main issue in this discussion, really.

calm down, all I meant by "made" was come into existence. Starting to get a little touchy. I'm not a expert on the universe, but how does a infinate universe expand?

Quote[/b] ]I guess you don't know anybody that keeps any kind of journal, or that governments keep records of these sorts of things?

exactly, I think the people of time left it up to the historians to preserve history, which is done by our govornment now.

Quote[/b] ]Wow, let's exaggerate and generalize more, please. I wont accept anything a Christian scholar says? Come on buddy...
What I will not do is simply accept what they say. I will examine it for myself. I do the same with *gasp* atheists' assertions! I've correct atheists for being stupid many times, believe it or not (but not as many times as theists). If the arguments you bring to the table, or you yourself, cannot stand the scrutiny with which I will examine them, then I suggest you get out of the game.

your right, I made a huge false generalization. I'm sorry. Just for the record I'm not being sarcastic here. It was wrong of me to assume you would be close minded.

Quote[/b] ]If you read carefully, you'll see that those historians, such as Tacitus, are merely talking about Jesus' followers, the Christians (in what happens to be a contemporary setting! wowzers!), and offhandedly relate that they follow a man who lived previously named Jesus. They're not doing some big bio on Jesus, they're not even giving him a paragraph's worth. They're simply mentioning him because the existence of Christians themselves is undeniable.

So your going as far to say that ALL of them only refered(sp?) to christians, and never mention Jesus as living?

Quote[/b] ]And so we've arrived back at the very beginning of this debate.....

yeah, looks that way to me too


Alrite, I"m sorry for the previous sarcasm. It didn't contribute to the conversation at all, and would have better been left out. I"m only human, and do get caught up in anger. Again, I"m sorry please let me remind you that I don't hate anyone.

-Corey

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]to figure out whether or not Jesus lived, and if he did, whether or not he was who the gospel writers say he claimed to be.

And what historic writtings do you have that are written that say that the Gospel is false and was written 2,000 years ago?  After the Gospels were written, why didn't anybody step up and claim them to be false in their own writtings?

You'd think the Jewish writtings would allude to that.  But, at worst they say is that he claimed to be the Messiah.  They don't write that he was not the messiah.  It is interesting, don't you think.  If the Jews wanted to crush Christianity, that instead of prosecuting them, all they ever had to do was produce a body of any man and claim it to be Jesus' body.  There was no DNA testing back then, no man could discern the skull of one dead person from the skull of another dead person.

I find it even more funny, that here we are 2,000 years later, and with the intellegance over their on the non-Christian camp, that not one has done that either.  Not like we have a DNA sample today to match to it.

hmmm....interesting.  I wonder what would happen if somebody dug up a body from their local cemetary and tried to pawn it off as God?

I bet the answer lies somewher around that people are afraid to do such a thing, just in case they were wrong.

 

[TastyWheat]

A few comments, and questions.

First, Peon, you raise some certainly intriguing points that made me think.

Second, a comment on something you mentioned in an above post, timor. Through some of the research I've done lately I've found that many scholars (and since most of these scholars were Christian and Jewish, the view may be slanted; however, with the propensity of the comment I'm more inclined to believe that it is not slanted) are now beginning to agree that the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the OT), the Enuma Elish (companion/slight precursor to the Epic of Gilgamesh), and ancient Samaratan texts could hail from one common source, that being the oldest of texts. Now, obviously we don't have that, but it provides a logical basis for the similiarities between the three texts we do have.

Third, a little more reflection on the Jesus thing. One thing that continually nags me is the fact that Jesus' followers were more adamant about him than any of those following other "messiahs". To my knowledge we don't have any material that bears witness to signs and miracles relating to those other messiahs (but if there is some, please let me know, I would love to investigate this further). This is not backed by anything I've read, so this is opinion, but another thought I've had is that most of the Roman historians documenting religion, etc., most likely did not want to die. Christianity was seen as a grave offense, as one of the Pliny's documented, because they worshiped a king other than Caesar. I think just knowing that is reason enough to think that maybe the dude being payed by Caeser to write things down would be rather hesitent of giving credance to something belittling Caesar's divinity!

The one thing that sticks out in my mind as I mull over these things is that Jesus, in the context of Scripture, was not identified with who He was (kind, compassionate, etc), but with what He did. There are so many similarities, most profoundly noted in the Gospel of John, between His actions and YHWH's in the Old Testament that it just baffles me. It more than baffled his peers, too; it angered them! The Pharisee's anger was fueled by the fact that this dude claimed to be God! Now, I am not claiming the uniqueness of Jesus' actions here extemporaneously, because I'm sure some other guy may have claimed the same stuff. But why don't we have anything written about them? In my opinion, it's because Jesus worked signs and miracles that were attributed to the true Messiah in the books of the prophets. YHWH in the Pentateuch is not classified as "omnipotent", "omniscient", or "omnipresent"; He's "The God who delivered His people out of Egypt into the Promised Land." It is too easy to rely on vague, Hellenistic classifications of who theologians and philosophers think God is. God did things, and by those signs He was proved right to His people. Jesus did things, and by those signs I believe he was proved right.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and most of what I've said can be argued against; I know that much, if I know nothing else. But man...I've dealt with this issue of doubting Christ for the last year and a half of my life, and what I believe is what I believe to be true in my heart...and I daresay if any of you are out to find the truth you should at least appreciate that.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Master~Plan @ Mar. 01 2004,12:25)]

Just a disclaimer: As I am heavily outnumbered, you're going to have to allow me a teensy bit of time to respond to so many posts directed towards me at one time

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Again, that makes 0 sense. For one thing, the big bang implies that the universe would be expanding, which it is. This is an observance which is in accord with the theory. Now, as for "ANY theory of how the earth was made" is begging the question -- the earth didn't have to be "made". That implies a creator, which is the main issue in this discussion, really.

calm down, all I meant by "made" was come into existence. Starting to get a little touchy. I'm not a expert on the universe, but how does a infinate universe expand?

Then please choose your words more carefully so I understand what you're saying. As for the expansion, I'm not too sure. Our universe, and effectively space-time, have a shape, which implies that the universe is indeed finite. Or perhaps the universe itself is infinite, while the planets, stars, and galaxies are all moving away from each other within this infinite expanse. I'm not too sure, to be honest. Interesting question, one I'll have to ask a freind about.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I guess you don't know anybody that keeps any kind of journal, or that governments keep records of these sorts of things?

exactly, I think the people of time left it up to the historians to preserve history, which is done by our govornment now.

I think you missed my point, which was that people do keep contemporary records, and so did people from that list I mentioned.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Wow, let's exaggerate and generalize more, please. I wont accept anything a Christian scholar says? Come on buddy...
What I will not do is simply accept what they say. I will examine it for myself. I do the same with *gasp* atheists' assertions! I've correct atheists for being stupid many times, believe it or not (but not as many times as theists). If the arguments you bring to the table, or you yourself, cannot stand the scrutiny with which I will examine them, then I suggest you get out of the game.

your right, I made a huge false generalization. I'm sorry. Just for the record I'm not being sarcastic here. It was wrong of me to assume you would be close minded.

Thank you, apology accepted

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If you read carefully, you'll see that those historians, such as Tacitus, are merely talking about Jesus' followers, the Christians (in what happens to be a contemporary setting! wowzers!), and offhandedly relate that they follow a man who lived previously named Jesus. They're not doing some big bio on Jesus, they're not even giving him a paragraph's worth. They're simply mentioning him because the existence of Christians themselves is undeniable.

So your going as far to say that ALL of them only refered(sp?) to christians, and never mention Jesus as living?

I see no extensive, detailed accounts on the life of Jesus, which would be expected of such an influential fellow.

Quote[/b] ]Alrite, I"m sorry for the previous sarcasm. It didn't contribute to the conversation at all, and would have better been left out. I"m only human, and do get caught up in anger. Again, I"m sorry please let me remind you that I don't hate anyone.

-Corey

It's really no problem, it doesn't phase me one bit.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Mar. 01 2004,3:25)]

Quote[/b] ]And what historic writtings do you have that are written that say that the Gospel is false and was written 2,000 years ago? After the Gospels were written, why didn't anybody step up and claim them to be false in their own writtings?

I have a serious question -- do you know how widespread the gospels were at the time of their writing, which was, if I may remind you, at the very least 50 years after the supposed time of Jesus?

Quote[/b] ]You'd think the Jewish writtings would allude to that. But, at worst they say is that he claimed to be the Messiah. They don't write that he was not the messiah. It is interesting, don't you think.

Well, if they're Jewish, that kind of speaks for itself and denies him as the Messiah, doesn't it?

Quote[/b] ]If the Jews wanted to crush Christianity, that instead of prosecuting them, all they ever had to do was produce a body of any man and claim it to be Jesus' body. There was no DNA testing back then, no man could discern the skull of one dead person from the skull of another dead person.

Right, so doing this wouldn't be very effective to people who actually had a brain, now would it?

Quote[/b] ]I find it even more funny, that here we are 2,000 years later, and with the intellegance over their on the non-Christian camp, that not one has done that either. Not like we have a DNA sample today to match to it.

What? You want people to scour the Middle East for strands of DNA of Jesus'? Where? How? Do you have any idea what you're asking? Besides, its hard to find DNA for a fairy tale.

Quote[/b] ]
hmmm....interesting. I wonder what would happen if somebody dug up a body from their local cemetary and tried to pawn it off as God?

lol, they'd probably be shipped off to a mental hospital

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (TastyWheat @ Mar. 01 2004,12:57)]

Quote[/b] ]Second, a comment on something you mentioned in an above post, timor. Through some of the research I've done lately I've found that many scholars (and since most of these scholars were Christian and Jewish, the view may be slanted; however, with the propensity of the comment I'm more inclined to believe that it is not slanted) are now beginning to agree that the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the OT), the Enuma Elish (companion/slight precursor to the Epic of Gilgamesh), and ancient Samaratan texts could hail from one common source, that being the oldest of texts. Now, obviously we don't have that, but it provides a logical basis for the similiarities between the three texts we do have.

Very interesting -- do you happen to have a link? I'd love to read that.

Quote[/b] ]Third, a little more reflection on the Jesus thing. One thing that continually nags me is the fact that Jesus' followers were more adamant about him than any of those following other "messiahs". To my knowledge we don't have any material that bears witness to signs and miracles relating to those other messiahs (but if there is some, please let me know, I would love to investigate this further). This is not backed by anything I've read, so this is opinion, but another thought I've had is that most of the Roman historians documenting religion, etc., most likely did not want to die. Christianity was seen as a grave offense, as one of the Pliny's documented, because they worshiped a king other than Caesar. I think just knowing that is reason enough to think that maybe the dude being payed by Caeser to write things down would be rather hesitent of giving credance to something belittling Caesar's divinity!

Very interesting point, and possibly a very valid one. Regarding the other messiahs, thats why I'm wondering if maybe Jesus is just a big combination of the many messiahs running around, you know? As for the Romans, while some of the historians were certainly court historians, many were not. The other problem I see is that this totally contradicts the passages your peers presented. Very interesting point, however, and one possibly worth researching.

Quote[/b] ]The one thing that sticks out in my mind as I mull over these things is that Jesus, in the context of Scripture, was not identified with who He was (kind, compassionate, etc), but with what He did. There are so many similarities, most profoundly noted in the Gospel of John, between His actions and YHWH's in the Old Testament that it just baffles me. It more than baffled his peers, too; it angered them! The Pharisee's anger was fueled by the fact that this dude claimed to be God! Now, I am not claiming the uniqueness of Jesus' actions here extemporaneously, because I'm sure some other guy may have claimed the same stuff. But why don't we have anything written about them? In my opinion, it's because Jesus worked signs and miracles that were attributed to the true Messiah in the books of the prophets. YHWH in the Pentateuch is not classified as "omnipotent", "omniscient", or "omnipresent"; He's "The God who delivered His people out of Egypt into the Promised Land." It is too easy to rely on vague, Hellenistic classifications of who theologians and philosophers think God is. God did things, and by those signs He was proved right to His people. Jesus did things, and by those signs I believe he was proved right.

Perhaps writings of others were lost in time since they failed to generate such a following as Jesus? *shrug* Furthermore, how much credibility can you give to the gospels? You truly must admit that many of the given accounts are extraordinary and totally unprovable (miracles) -- does this mean they didn't happen? No, but it makes it very hard to believe they did. However, this is really neither here nor there, and topics regarding Jesus' life as depicted in the gospels is worthy of whole topics of their own. Please don't think I'm dodging this, I simply think that we could go a lot further in depth actually studying Jesus' life in the gospels than this thread would do justice.

Quote[/b] ]If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and most of what I've said can be argued against; I know that much, if I know nothing else. But man...I've dealt with this issue of doubting Christ for the last year and a half of my life, and what I believe is what I believe to be true in my heart...and I daresay if any of you are out to find the truth you should at least appreciate that.

As long as you recognize the fact that your personal emotions will never amount to any kind of evidence to me, then I can certainly appreciate that to an extent. What is that extent? When you begin to put a pseudo-logical argument to these feelings, which is why I'm here

Thanks for your post, Tasty.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]I see no extensive, detailed accounts on the life of Jesus, which would be expected of such an influential fellow.

The detailed accounts of the life of Jesus were done by his desciples. Other historians mentioned him, but extensive detail had already been done. None of the historians disagreed with what the disciples wrote.
I just pulled one example of many historians that Thaddius gave. \/ How is this not evidence that there was a man named Jesus? All the stories about Jesus agree. I guess it comes down to if you can justify disreguarding the 5 seperate sources in the Bible about Jesus and all the historians that acknowledge Jesus existence. It doesn't matter how much they say, but the fact that they simply acknowledged his existence, and never disagreed with him living. The first account of anyone even questioning the existence of Jesus wasn't until the 18th century.  

Quote[/b] ]There is also a testimony to the historical Jesus from Suetonius, annalist and court official of the Imperial House during the reign of Hadrian. About A.D.120, he wrote the Life of Claudius. From this work comes his most famous statement: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."9 The reason for the fame of this quotation is due to the fact that Luke, some sixty years earlier, had recorded this same incident as the reason for the apostle Paul yoking up with a Christian Jewish couple named Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-2). Again, the mention of Christ in the historical context is observed in extra- biblical literature.

Quote[/b] ]exactly, I think the people of time left it up to the historians to preserve history, which is done by our govornment now.

Quote[/b] ]I think you missed my point, which was that people do keep contemporary records, and so did people from that list I mentioned.

if you look back, your original point was why didn't any of the 500 who saw Jesus after he died write it down, and thats what I was answering

 

[timor]

I've already addressed everything in your post, many times. This is becoming nauseatingly repetitive.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]I have a serious question -- do you know how widespread the gospels were at the time of their writing, which was, if I may remind you, at the very least 50 years after the supposed time of Jesus?

50 years after the fact is alot sooner then almost all historic biographies. Why is it easier for you to believe that a historic biography of a person written 500 years after their death by somebody who never knew the subject would me more accurate then one written 50 years after the fact by somebody who did know the subject? The gospels were written within the lifetimes of the people invlolved with Jesus. If there were any discrepencies, they would have spoken up. They didn't.

And even though the written gospels were likely not in widespread use, (although they were most likely copied and sent to the known churches) the oral representation was. And those who knew both the oral and written certainly would have spoken up if there were any deviations or discrepencies. Again funny, no evidence of that happening either.

 

[TastyWheat]

Quote[/b] (timor @ Mar. 01 2004,10:31)]Very interesting -- do you happen to have a link? I'd love to read that.

No link, just books in our library and mostly class lectures. I can't remember all the authors off the top of my head, but if you get a chance see if Carl Schultz or Nahum Sarna have anything useful to say in the matter. There's a great book called Documents of Old Testament Times by Winton Thomas that also contains the non-biblical texts, pretty cool to look at.

Quote[/b] ]No, but it makes it very hard to believe they did.

Makes it hard to prove they did. Anyone with faith (or, perhaps on the opposite side, with extremely little logical sense in their head) can believe they did. Personally I veer more toward the faith side of things.

Quote[/b] ]As long as you recognize the fact that your personal emotions will never amount to any kind of evidence to me, then I can certainly appreciate that to an extent. What is that extent? When you begin to put a pseudo-logical argument to these feelings

Yep, which is why I don't pull out the all-too-often used "Christianity is right just because I feel it is." There is definitely a danger mixing "logic" with "feelings"; however I think it is possible to bridge the gap. That's what Aquinas and C.S. Lewis are all about - drawing the bridge between faith and reason.

 

[Eon]

Aquinas - wasn't he the one who said that God had created Hell for those who pry into Mysteries?

 

[TastyWheat]

lol - maybe we should stop asking so many questions on this board then in case he's right.

 

[Jango]

Quote[/b] ]Besides, its hard to find DNA for a fairy tale.

Watch it.

Quote[/b] ]Aquinas - wasn't he the one who said that God had created Hell for those who pry into Mysteries?

Either way, that's not backed up by the Bible.