So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
The historical evidence is reasonably undeniable--check the records.
When you tell someone that you don't believe in the bible, or a god, and they immediately quote the bible as proof is what gets me laughing. Ignorance is Bliss I guess.
So, this guy talks about the criteria for “historians” and “scientists.” Ok, by their criteria, they conclude that Jesus is not “ well attested to?” Well, surprise surprise.
I note that Bart wrote a book about the historicity of Jesus.
So, I would suppose that AS would agree with Bart in that. Jesus was indeed an historical figure. Pretty well attested to as well.
Can’t replicate His miracles by the scientific method? Wouldn’t be miracles if you could and would not testify to the God nature of Christ either. Not surprising to me at all.
I will also note that I agree with Bart in my interpretation (paraphrase) of his conclusion..... that if you believe in Jesus as a worker of miracles and perhaps as the Son of God, it is for theological reasons not the historical record of the miracles. Yep, I agree with that.
Takes more than miracles to see Jesus who He is.
This guy is an entertainer and book seller.
Unlike a religious follower who's obligated to mindlessly believe all the potions of a divine text, I have no requirement to accept all the positions of someone I consider a reputable source.
On the historicity of Jesus, I find Bart's evidence insufficient.
Bart's a PHD professor in Biblical Studies. He started out as a devout Christian, and the more he's studied, the more he realized a literal reading of the text is not tenable.
You find Ehrman’s evidence insufficient.....? Lol...... Ok, you can be the judge, after all it is only you that you have to convince. Perhaps someday you will reconsider when you are confronted with conflict.
Who is this “religious follower who’s obligated to mindlessly believe.....?” Sounds like you. You are obligated to only believe the science.
There is an entire suite of reality, beings and experiences out there that you are seemingly unaware of.
But, by all means trundle on, keeping your eyes shut.
The Bible refers to those in this condition as “blind.”
Why would you presume I've never been confronted with conflict?
I've faced my fair share and see no benefit in confronting conflict through a distorted lens of reality.
As for what I'm "obligated" to believe, as a skeptic, unlike the religious, I'm not "obligated" to believe anything until I find the evidence is sufficient to support a given belief.
When scientist initially make claims about the existence of what we label Dark Matter, it was probably 10 years before I found the evidence sufficient to support the claim it existed. Theologians have had a couple thousand years, and yet, they still can't come up with anything as convincing as the lensing effect of dark matter.
His goal was to philosophically convince Rome to officially reject Christianity and return officially to paganism. His arguments against the deity of Christ clearly establish Jesus as a man of history. He had access to the Roman census records. Anyone who says there is not evidence to prove that Jesus is a man of history has either not done the research or they refuse to believe the evidence. Unbelief in in the historicity of Jesus Christ is a matter of the heart and not the head. Skeptics are typically not willing to believe the evidence.
Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
Isaiah 53 prophesied in advance that the Jews and many others would largely reject Christ as their Messiah. Your "evidence" is merely proof of what Isaiah foresaw with divine inspiration before you were born and could make your statements. Truth is not created or annihilated by belief, but by facts. The facts of history are that Jesus died and rose again. Whether you choose to believe that He is the promised Messiah is a personal faith choice that does not alter the facts of history in either way.
I think you are missing the point I was making. The critics of Christianity in the days of the early Church did not deny that Jesus performed miracles, because there were too many witnesses...
Famous magicians still draw large audiences that 'witness' objects appearing and disappearing, miracle like.
some even think great magicians have sold their soul to the devil to gain the ability to do what they believe are wonderous awe inspiring supernatural acts or demomstrations.
then others with adopted religious beliefs will think a person can get such supernatural powers from a God.
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the ultimate proof that His deeds were not sleight of hand, illusory, or occultic. .
Christians for millennia have ultimately relied on FAITH that He has risen , not proof.
Evidence or proof based beliefs don't require such faith , or do they?
When it comes to right before ones very eyes miracles or magic shows, People can claim to witness things and simply be fooled into believing something happened that didn't actually happen...but they will swear it did. now if that aint credulous enough ....many folks today [without actually witnessing] totally believe in miracles /or magic shows from 2000+ yrs ago and they remain totally convinced that it happened precisely the way they have been told it happened.
In other words,.. they are putting blind faith in the long strung-out contorted word of mouth subjective beliefs shared from one anonymous [non-witnessing] believer to another....and they take it all to be the indisputable Gospel Truth.
These statements about Christianity simply are not true. The death and resurrection story from the very beginning was shared on the basis of fact. Note Luke's Gospel's opening statements:
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke makes it clear to Theophilus that the things believed by the Christians were based on eye witness accounts. In his gospel record he provides the chronology of the events tracing the timelines with both the Jewish religious calendar and significant events in the Roman Empire with the intent to show the certainty of the record. This time frame of Christ has been validated by both Suetonius and and Tacitus the Roman historians as Jesus having been crucified under Pontius Pilate.
Suetonius--Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
Tacitus--But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Pliny--They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.
When you tell someone that you don't believe in the bible, or a god, and they immediately quote the bible as proof is what gets me laughing. Ignorance is Bliss I guess.
Well quoting the Bible establishes the source of their belief--if they couldn't quote a supporting reference it would leave their belief merely a personal persuasion like a skeptic's belief. However this response does not mean that there is not plenty of external witnesses to the truth of scripture in history and archaeology. The skeptic's position is based on their lack of a sure knowledge--which is not convincing of anything.
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
[quote=Jahrs]Then you want to suppose for a moment that history did not turn out the way it did and that there was no Messiah proclaimed in the Old Testament who was never born?
The Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindu's not the Buddhists, or the Shinto's.....and in my opinion, the evidence for Mohammed and Buddha are equally suspect. I'll even go so far as to throw in Socrates into that club.
Here's the difference between Socrates and everyone else mentioned above. The question of the truth of the propositions made in his name are not dependent upon weather or not he existed. It doesn't matter if The Republic was dictated by Socratic's himself, or written by a student of Plato the precepts stand and fall on their own.
In contrast, you've just admitted the same cannot be said for Christianity.
You can’t lump all Jews into that category. Wernt they all jews that were praying in the upper room? All of the initial Christians were Jews as well. And to question the truth of the proposition, as you say, made in Jesus’ name being dependent upon whether or not he existed would mean that the Bible, His Word, would be false.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Jahrs
Christianity answers the questions that bridge the heart and mind. It is truth and relevant. The question is not if Jesus died and rose again, but why?
Let's presume for a moment that he didn't exist.
Would the precepts of Christianity remain true?
And with this question you are admitting that those propositions are true.
I should of been more clear and asked if it would change the truth value of the precepts, or something of that nature. In other words, do the Christian claims regarding what's proper behavior and wisdom survive scrutiny with out the supernatural god claims. Can the Christian precepts stand on their own?
They have for centuries--does your belief system have the same track record?
In the past I have brought up some of the scriptural indescrepencies he mentions, but IIRC, none of the cF Christians were able to dress them.
Of course not.
The best they ever manage was some Ad hominem against Eherman.
The Jesus of Mark, and the Jesus of John, are two completely different characters. They are so different as to be mutually exclusive, and cannot both represent the true nature of the same character.
State your case that they can’t be the same person.
Contradictions yes but errors no. None, never has been an error proven. It’s totally reliable historically, prophetically and what it claims are that have happened.
Contradictions because the accounts come from different perspectives and personalities of the writers. Errors no because all writers were moved by the Holy Spirit when they wrote.
I’m pretty sure that all condradictions have already been addressed by theologians and can be answered in a reasonable manner.
Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.
Please explain the contradiction when using all the gospel accounts.
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
That's easy. Use a trick illusion to fulfill any prophecy you want. I mentioned identical twins. I watched a pretty blond from a camera in a helicopter in the air. She disappeared from the ground and showed up riding in the helicopter. Cool illusion.
Explain how the prophecy concerning Cyrus' destruction of Babylon was a magical illusion.
James was the first book written in the New Testament about AD 50 for Jewish Christians. James was the half-brother of Jesus and was head of the Jerusalem Church. Paul hadn’t yet been converted, and the believers only had the Old Testament and what they knew about the risen Jesus.
James talked about the law of love, Christians are to be as totally committed to the law of love as the Jews were to the Mosaic law. Those were staunch Jews who had no blueprint on how to be Christ-followers. They couldn’t imagine no longer being under the law and having to now surrender to the Royal Law of Christ. Jesus fulfilled the law.
James is a book of grace and is not a book about works and the law. It was written to encourage the believers to have faith in Christ and fulfill the Royal Law by allowing their faith to build their trust in God.
I like the prophecies that said the Jews would regain their homeland and the capitol would be estored to Jerusalem and the temple restored and how they should sign no treaties with their enemies as they would try to push them into the sea and the 6 day war and how they would be carried to safety as though by the wings of an eagle (which Nixon did) and how good would become evil and evil good (gay) and how in the latter days the men would become as women (which would of necessity mean women would become as men) and how Christ would return at the last trump (or Trump?).
Oh, and that the city of Tyre (sp?) would fall into the sea never to rise again.
Last edited by jaguartx; 07/01/19.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Knew nothing of the Book of Enoch so did a little research. Horny angels jumping human women sounds interesting. Particularly since angels not being native to our universe, having no physical presence, should be nonsexual. And them hungry giants!
That of which you post can also be found in the Bible. Their spawn was one of the reasons for the flood.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
I find it difficult to believe in people that say they believe in Christ yet they have not given all their wealth away, and are not poor humble people living with nothing and spreading the word. Jesus Christ is very clear about what you have to do to be a Christian, and what the penalties are if you do not. Only the poor need apply for a start. I don't think that nearly all Christian people really do believe in the bible, not really. The bible is very clear on all points.
I can therefor say, that I have never met anyone who was a true Christian except for a man I once saw, who lived rough, had nothing at all, and was shouting at passers-by from a park about how they were all going to hell. (Or some monks and priests that I have read about, having not met complete ascetics myself personally.)
That man was the only true Christian I have met. I can't see anyone on this thread for example, as having followed Jesus's instructions, and I am not sure I believe them when they say they are believers, or profess to believe that he the only "true way" or other similar language.
I have thoguht a good deal about this.
The gospel has always been for all classes of people. No one can earn their salvation by riches or voluntary poverty. Jesus talked to people from all walks of life. He was always consistent on Him being the only way of salvation and the importance for us to follow His moral and spiritual teachings. He did not give every person the same life direction regarding wealth because each person's calling can be different. The Scriptures give guidance to the rich and poor and indicate that covetousness is not based on what we do or do not have, but rather it is a condition of the heart that can affect all classes. Instructions are given concerning those who are rich to not trust in their riches ... which also assumes their will be some rich believers. In every class of wealth or poverty we are called upon to yield those resources to the Lord and use them as He would direct our lives. We are told not to trust in uncertain riches but in the One who gives to us richly.
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Everything else is Law which condemns, not saves.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
If you haven’t seen this video that I posted over a week ago please take a look now. Listen or watch it in its entirety and consider and evaluate it fairly for yourself.
“No one in hell can ever say I went to Christ and He rejected me.
[/quote]Mark and John don't even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. I posdted a 15 minute video above from a PHD in biblical studies discussing some of the most blatant contradictions. I see you haven't answered any of the specifics, just made the typical dogmatic claims. I suspect you didn't even watch it because it would cause too much cognitive dissidence for you.[quote]
The Gospels all agree that Jesus died on a Friday during Passover on the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath (cf. Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:42). Once you identify this common thread through all the gospels now you can understand what each one is trying to convey. Matthew and Mark emphasize that they were eating a Passover meal. They also clarify that the leaders did not intend to apprehend Him on the official temple Passover day, therefore the plan was take him before the official temple Passover. (Matt.26:5; Mk 14:2) Luke clarifies that Christ intended for this Passover meal to take place as the "eaten in the home Passover" before He was crucified.Luke 22:15 John indicates that this meal eaten in the home took place before the official temple Passover took place. John 13:1; 18:28; 19:14
... Ascribing it to magic is acknowledging the evidence of supernatural works being performed by Christ.
Some people form or adopt that belief and some are far more susceptible to doing so than others ...but belief alone is not necessarily truth. nor is what ones perceives [when they claim to have witnessed something], necessarily the truth of the matter.
People with preconceived beliefs or just easily influenced minds are known to go calling some things miracles, when in fact they are not.
People who watch magicians can actually start to 'believe' something appeared or disappeared or changed etc, right before their very eyes! easily forgetting the whole game of magic is based on ILLUSION [ an erroneous or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience.] then that is compounded by DELUSION [an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality]
I find it interesting that Jahrs quotes Second Peter, which is widely considered a later forgery and NOT written by Peter, even among those who biblical scholars who believe Peter existed.
Yes, that is interesting. I will continue to do my "church" thing at home as we have for 20+ years. I may be accused of failing somewhere else by God, but it won't be because I physically and silently allowed innocent babies to be murdered in this country. That is just one of many issues we have addressed in the last 20+ years. It appears these wonderful churches many are so proud of have adapted the song: Silence is Golden.
Magicians create the illusion and then they let those in the audience create their own delusion.
A persons CREDULITY is the most powerful weapon magicians, illusionists, mentalists and preachers use.
MAGIC (otherwise known as trickery) is a powerful weapon that instead of developing critical and rational thinking in people, screws deeply in them credulity/amazement and establishes wonder and the inexplicable into a society already ill and rotten by subjective beliefs and other irrational and ridiculous superstitions.
Please explain how magic worked when prophecy was given, separated by 700 to 1000 years prior to fulfillment works?
That's easy. Use a trick illusion to fulfill any prophecy you want. I mentioned identical twins. I watched a pretty blond from a camera in a helicopter in the air. She disappeared from the ground and showed up riding in the helicopter. Cool illusion.
Explain how the prophecy concerning Cyrus' destruction of Babylon was a magical illusion.
Prophecies are predictions credited to intuition or inspiration. Sometimes they even come true. Has very little to do with explaining how some “miracles” are preformed by illusions. I have seen Shaquille O'Neal float over a house. A really “big” illusion.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
