The jesus story isn't original
Replies
-
Other stories similar to jesus' story preceded the new testament. Heracles was born half human half god, did "labors" of good, was killed, and resurrected to be a god. Horus is another man god story. Many of the births centered around the winter solstice.
So jesus story isn't original, it's just another rendition of a man-god story that was carried down through the ages.
Discuss.....
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
My biggest problem with this is the same one that I have with the Jesus seminar. The currently accepted scholastic view of the origins of Christianity are that they are oriental, near east. It was a culture that loathed syncretism, and was stictly monotheist. The idea (especially as espoused by Erhman) that a group of Jews from that area would create a mythology based on a Greek worldview is a touch misinformed. It is an easy thing to say from this vast time distance, very tough to picture from the contemporary picture. A bit of chronological snobbery, really.
You are assuming that those elements of mythology and "Greek worldview" originated with the "group of Jews from that area" who formed the core of the "Jesus movement" (not my favorite phrase, but the most apt I can think of after such little sleep).
The core of "Jesusism" IMO consists of the sayings and teachings attributed to him. That's it. Everything else from then until now is an add-on, and thus, again IMO, subject to very human influences. So, no, the "group of Jews" did not create the mythology. The different "layers" were added on later--by Jewish followers who needed to defend themselves against other Jews by placing Jesus' life within Jewish scriptural context, anti-Semitic Greeks who needed to both remove Jesus from that Jewish context and reconcile Jesus with the tenets of Platonism, etc, etc, etc. Maybe I am misreading your comment, but it seems that saying the original "group of Jews" created "the mythology" ignores the several centuries of theological (and sometimes political) debate that initially defined Catholic/Christian doctrine, and the subsequent centuries of debate that have refined it.0 -
Of course realize, the entire point of Christian beliefs is that the proof got up and walked away! Heck, if we ever found the body, we Christians would have real problems!I still find it an interesting paradox that there is so little physical substance of someone who has played such a pivotal role in modern history.
I laughed at your response--that's a great way to put it.
Again, my remarks on that subject (temporal existence of Jesus) are not meant to argue against that existence.0 -
I'm never surprised when people from millenia ago turn out to have made a mistake.
We don't know what year Christ may have been born, so how can we accurately know it's been 2011 years?
It's just a cultural way of keeping a calendar. Not everyone even uses it. And it's changed numerous times.
I am in no way disputing that there were followers of Christ, referred to in historic writings as Christians. The theory I've read is that it's a mistranslation of "nice people". I've read that who we refer to as Jesus Christ may have been an apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua Ben Yosef. One thing I know based simply on having a brain is that at the very least the dude was not blonde with blue eyes and a button nose.
So we don't know when he was born, when he died, what his name was or what he looked like. But everyone's so sure he exists and thinks we should base our lives on him. Sorry. Not for me.
We have far more information about Jesus (Hebrew Yeshua ben Yosef just means Jesus, Son of Joseph, nothing all that surprising there) than about virtually any other person of antiquity. The New Testament includes 27 documents written by people who either had direct contact with Jesus or were contemporaries of those who did. If you apply the normal standards of historical investigation to the New Testament documents they pass with flying colors. If the evidence and reasons for believing in Jesus were as shallow and inconsequential as you suggest in your brief comments, it is ludicrous to imagine billions of people giving their lives to follow him. I dare say more books have been written about Jesus than anyone else so the data must be far more significant than the largely unknown character you describe.
Without corroborating objective evidence, you can't really use christian writings as "proof" of the existence of Jesus, and the use of citations that come from christian apologists is not very useful either. The idea that "more books have been written about jesus" also serves as "proof" is equally weak. Over 100 million copies of "Lord of the Rings" have been sold--that doesn't prove the existence of Hobbits.
The need for christian writers to "prove" the existence of Jesus by exaggerating and even inventing historical "evidence" seems particularly insecure for a religion that has inspired "billions of people giving their lives to follow".
It doesn't really make any difference, does it?
I see the question as essentially being of two parts. The first is "was there an actual person, whatever his nature, named Jesus who lived and preached in Galilee and Judea approx 2000 years? Like I said, I find it interesting that there is so little actual historical evidence. There is little or nothing in the way of records, government accounts, physical evidence, etc. There are no eyewitness accounts. You don't identify your 27 "sources", but I suspect I have read most of them, and all are hearsay, and arguments can be made that some have been altered and others only restate current thinking and historical interpretation of the time they were written.
I still find it an interesting paradox that there is so little physical substance of someone who has played such a pivotal role in modern history. (Again, I do not mean this in any disrespectful way). I have never discounted the idea that that may have been on purpose, if you believe in a "divine scheme".
To me, and I would think for most christians, the search for the "historical Jesus" is an interesting academic exercise, especially for those who enjoy digging for facts and historical analysis.
You made what I think is the most powerful and simple argument--probably the only one that needs to be made. Just like we "prove" the existence of things like black holes and subatomic particles by what happens around them, the fact that--whatever happened in that part of the world 2000 years ago--a message emerged that resonated then and now with a vast number of people is pretty powerful evidence that there was someone to initiate that message. I don't think a movement like that, occurring as it did in such a compressed period of time, it something that can just happen spontaneously.
So, regardless of what I considered to be almost nonexistent historical evidence, I am coming down on the side of, yes, there was a physical entity, charismatic leader, whatever you want to call him who did live at that time and whose teachings provided the earliest foundation of what eventually evolved into christianity.
Now the second question: was this Jesus who lived 2000 years ago, the Jesus Christ as defined by christian doctrine. That's the part I can't go with. I don't have time to go into detail, but when I look at the evolution of Jesus Christ, I think the historical evidence clearly shows that: A) the actual Jesus bears little or no resemblance to Jesus the Christ and
that the "creation" of Jesus the Christ was an essentially man-made affair, influenced by social, philosophical, and political factors that came into play as the original teachings of Jesus spread outside of the Jewish communities for which they were originally intended and into Greek, Roman, and eventually pagan cultures.
These are just opinions, of course, and one can, for the sake of argument, dispute them on their merits (or lack thereof). Someone who is a Christian can also just dismiss them out of hand--there's nothing to say that everything that has occurred isn't part of god's overall plan.
I don't write these things to try to undermine anyone's faith, nor to attack or denigrate (although I understand that some comments might be taken that way). I respect each individual's personal beliefs (emphasis on the "personal").
I think there is some significance in pointing out or arguing in favor of what I see are the "human" origins of religion, and this (finally) goes back to the original topic statement. I do think that most religions reflect human concepts rather than "divine" ones. I think that man creates god in man's image and likeness, not the other way around. I do think that many of the elements of the Jesus narrative use symbolism and themes that have been common to man and man's religions throughout recorded history. A person of "faith" might look at these common ideas as "proof" of god's influence since the beginning of time. People like me see them as evidence of archetypes that are an inherent part of humanity and so they manifest themselves in repeating themes across different era, cultures, and religions.
The main importance of this to me is to destroy the concept of "one true faith", the idea that there is only ONE acceptable type of religious belief, or that one religion is inherently superior and thus deserves to be given precedence over all others. That the beliefs of one particular sect should be used as the legal or moral standard that all other must follow and that adherence to one particular sect should be a de facto requirement for, say, holding public office.
So you are comparing a million copies of the most recent best seller in 2011 to the vast collection of authors over the past 2,000 years who wrote about Jesus? I don't think that's comparable.
And there is a lot of historical evidence for Jesus. But you want to discount all the Christians who wrote about Jesus? That's ridiculous. That's like saying that you would like to learn about Buddaism but you want to discount all those Buddists that wrote about their religion.
There is sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus available. All one has to do is look. But if you don't want to see it or believe it, nothing can be said or written that will be sufficient.0 -
If God didn't covet Mary, then why did he choose here specifically? Of course he coveted her. And it's hilarious that he needed her at all. Why not just make a man like he did Adam. Or one out of thin air. Why did he have to make him a baby to grow up, not a man from the very beginning? These stories just don't make any sense. So yes, I guess I am a skeptic, but I think that is a good thing other than falling for the oldest con job in the world.
Next, I stand by that Jesus, if he was in fact God, did commit suicide because he could escape his predicament with a thought. All this talk about human soldiers and policeman is a non factor because they do not possess super powers.
Everything else you wrote was drivel you read somewhere else and as poetic as it sounds, doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But I am glad you realize I don't respect the faith. But at least I'm honest about it. And I don't want lectures from anyone about being disrepectful or not knowledgeable, especially when you, a catholic, posted a thread raging about how bystanders to pedophila should be punished, but defended the current Pope and the Church's cover up of child rape as a vendetta perpetrated by the secular press.
It just goes to show, whether it's the insane stuff in your bible or the criminal activity of the pedos in your church, you are an apologist who thinks that her fancy words smiles makes her respectful. It doesn't.
1.Your first paragraph is so contrary to Christian theology that anyone familiar with Christian belief would find it totally unconvincing. Of course God could do anything and everything he wants without human involvement but that is apparently not how God has chosen to operate. Apparently God invites humans to participate in producing the world he wants to produce. The cosmic story is a work in progress and God allows us to share in that work (which, I think, is much more beautiful than God doing everything himself and not allowing us to share in that work). Regarding coveting, this is pure nonsense. There is nothing in the biblical text that suggests in any way that coveting is the appropriate term for God’s choice of Mary. God works a miracle within Mary for God’s holy purposes, not some kind of perverse desire. God also chose to enter into human experience and desired to share that experience from beginning to end (including birth, growth, and eventual death). Your suggestions that God could accomplished his goals in other ways strike me as so intellectually and spiritually “boring” that it is hard to muster up a reply. I mean really. What is more “interesting”: (a) A full-grown man is created by God out of thin air or (b) God appears in the form of a baby, sharing in all the fragility and weakness of the human form in its most vulnerable condition. Why don’t you “create” a religion that matches (a) and see how that goes. If you count how many songs and poems have been written about (b) I think you will have to agree that it is a far more fascinating, intriguing and intellectually and spiritually stimulating story.
2.Your second paragraph is a non-answer. You don’t even take the time to think about my analogy. The soldier doesn’t have superhuman power but he does have the power to escape death but doesn’t. Why does the possession of superhuman power change the analysis? Why isn’t the soldier guilty of suicide? No, when one lays down his life with others in mind, we don’t call it suicide, we call it heroic self-sacrifice. The death of Jesus does not in any way correspond to an act of suicide. In fact, if Jesus had access to superhuman power and didn’t use it because he was doing something for the good of others, that is an even greater act of courage. Further, I would argue that the power of self-giving love is far superior to the power of brute force. A child that respects his parents out of love and respect is more pleasing to a parent than a child that obeys out of sheer fear of the parent’s power or threat of force. Your conception of God is almost exclusively one of “power as force.” The Christian conception sees Christ as the revelation of God’s greatest expression of power: Love.
3.Everything I wrote yesterday was written out of my own understanding of Christian faith and not borrowed from anyone else. It doesn’t answer my arguments to call them “drivel.” I will take that as an admission that you can’t answer them. I directly responded to your argument based on quantifying the value of the death of Jesus in terms of time and you did not bother to consider that reply.
4.Concerning pedophiles, etc., I began my reply by saying such acts are deplorable. I hold they are evil, in fact. As a skeptic or atheist (not sure how you want to be identified) I am curious how you ground or justify your moral outrage. In my experience, militant atheists like to act all “moral” when they can criticize religious people but otherwise argue that all morality is just opinion and feelings. I’m curious how you justify your moral outrage. In any case, I feel as strongly as anyone about the evils of pedophilia but at the same time I don’t think we should believe something just because someone in the media makes a claim. Did you read the link I sent? Do you have factual evidence to prove the article is wrong? Why should I jump to conclude someone is guilty without a fair hearing of the evidence? Why are you so quick to judge the pope? What facts do you have that are not addressed in the article I sent? Have you carefully studied the details?
5.Your last line is nothing but an ad hominem argument. I’m not interested in “fancy” words at all. I’m just speaking up on behalf of the beautiful Christian faith that brings great joy and happiness to me and many others.0 -
1. Your first sentence is simply a non sequitur. If Jesus had a human father that would no more require that Jesus is "nothing more than a mortal man" than the fact that he had a human mother requires that he is "nothing more than a mortal man." I believe Jesus did not have a human father but your logic here simply is not convincing. What makes it impossible that God could unite himself to a human nature ("Incarnation") that is produced through normal human procreation? I see nothing that makes this impossible.
If you want to make a case that Heracles and Mitra is a factual historical case and draw some theological implications from it, I’m happy to consider those. I don’t know anyone who tries to make that case, however. I know plenty who make that case for Christianity. The sources are very different that refer to these events.The same could be said about Heracles and Mitra. Why couldn't it have happened with them?2. The birth of Jesus is not what separates Christianity from other religions. Muslims, for instance, admit the virgin birth of Jesus but deny his death on the cross. Regarding the Catholic mass, the center of the mass is the Last Supper of Jesus and sacramental participation in the sacrifice of Jesus. The focus is simply not on the birth of Jesus.
On Muslims and the virgin birth, see Surah 19 (Koran) and/or do a google search on, “Do Muslims believe in the virgin birth?” You will find plenty to support my claim.I'd like to see proof about Muslims admitting "virgin" birth of jesus. And the catholic mass is consistently proclaiming the virgin birth and even prays to Mary. Ever see statues of her in a catholic church with candles around it? I'm not saying that the last supper isn't an important part of the mass, but if you attend, you will most certainly hear in most responses about Mary's virginity, immaculate conception, and jesus divinity from it.3. You keep referring to "two Apostles" not mentioning the birth of Jesus (presumably you are referring to the two Gospels that do not mention the birth of Jesus). First, one of those Gospels was not written by an Apostle (Mark). The other one (John) is apparently written to supplement Matthew, Mark and Luke and therefore very rarely repeats the same things they present. I get the feeling you lack the basic familiarity with the New Testament that is required to adequately evaluate your claims.
I go to a Catholic Church every week and work every day in a Catholic environment. It is simply not true that Mary is present in virtually every response, etc. The Creed mentions, among many things, that we believe that Jesus was “conceived of the virgin Mary,” and we also have a shared confession sometimes at the beginning of the mass that includes a request to Mary and all the saints to pray to God for us. That’s about it in a normal mass. The rest of the service is filled with references to Jesus. I’m certainly not wanting to minimize the Catholic love for Mary but the structure and contents of the mass are simply not built around Mary or the virgin birth.I'm sorry, I understood an apostle as a messenger. So I will recant and say "gospels of 2 people who followed jesus". Regardless, 2 gospels don't denote this important fact. Without the virgin birth, jesus then was nothing but an ordinary man.4. By raising kids without sharing your religious faith you are teaching them an attitude towards religion. You are telling them that your religion means so little to you that you don't even want to share it with them. If I have something wonderful that I want my kids to share and experience, I make it available to them.
Again, you keep repeating the claim that if Jesus was not born of a virgin he is nothing but an ordinary man. First, I of course believe in the virgin birth. Second, the uniqueness of Jesus is not exclusively founded on his virgin birth. The New Testament builds the uniqueness of Jesus on a variety of other bases (e.g., his unique relationship to God, his relationship to King David, his ability to do miracles, his authoritative teaching, his incredible knowledge without having formal training, his resurrection and ascension, his fulfilling the words of the prophets). To give exclusive importance to the virgin birth as if that is the only grounds of his importance is simply contrary to the Bible and is an arbitrary standard that the Christian faith has never claimed.subjective. I see religion as a way people are coerced into following a set of rules by a being who has no evidence of existing. You can have morals without religion. It's just not the morals that the religious like.5. The Holy Spirit works through human instruments. What you are suggesting is a very unChristian approach; what you are describing is more like Gnosticism. Christians believe that God is known and revealed through his creation. This is one of the central reasons that we believe God became "incarnate" in Jesus. God draws near to humans within the creation rather than in spite of it.
Your reply here is “subjective.” Morals have traditionally been tied to religious frameworks. If you have studied moral philosophy you know that those who devote their lives to trying to establish a basis of morality without appeal to a religious foundation have a very hard time doing so. You have the classic hedonist positions (morality is really just the pursuit of pleasure) and the division between those who argue for maximizing sensual pleasure and those who argue for maximizing more “cultured pleasures”; you have those who argue for moderation and those who argue for getting all you can as soon as possible; you have those who argue that morality is nothing more than a “cloak” for expressions of feeling (“Emotivism”); you have those who argue that morality should factor in the good of the larger community (Utilitarianism); among those there are some who argue that you factor up the greatest good based on quantitative analysis (Jeremy Bentham) over against those who argue for a qualitative analysis (J. S. Mill); on the other hand you have a whole group who argue that ethics/morality should not be based on an analysis of “ends” or goals at all. Instead, there are some moral principles that arise from intuition and consistency (application of the law of non-contradiction) and should not consider “effects” at all (Immanual Kant, deontological ethics). This only scratches the surface. Surely you know about the huge debates over cultural relativism. The most basic question that is constantly posed in college ethics classes is the famous “naturalistic fallacy”: How can you derive an “ought” from an “is”? In other words, where does ethics come from? Ethics cannot be based purely on empirical considerations since those give us only factual knowledge not a basis for moral duty. If moral duty arises from within, where do the universal demands of morality come from? If you say there are no universal moral demands, then you lose the right to criticize someone else’s morality and you also have to admit that you cannot have a “morality” in any objective sense of the word. You may say that you personally “feel” like one thing is good but you cannot say it is “good” for everyone. That sounds more like subjectivism than morality to me. By the way, I think I have lots of reasons to believe what I teach my kids is true.Wait. So when a person says they were touched by the holy spirit, it was actually a human that did it? Interesting. I guess all the people that say it are full of crap then.6. Yes, conversions take place when people are convinced. That must mean that a lot of people have found Christianity convincing through the centuries. Again, you make an illogical leap by implying the Holy Spirit acts without means or instruments.
When people say they are “touched by the Holy Spirit” they probably mean a lot of things. Some of these may be valid and others not. My only point was that God works through created means or instruments in order to reveal himself. For example, a person may be guided by the Holy Spirit “through” words from Scripture, “thoughts” infused into their mind, “words” spoken through friends, a “song” they hear, a nature scene they see, or whatever. God’s presence and guidance will be mediated through some created thing that is used to carry some meaning from God to a person. This is somewhat similar to what we are doing now. My “spirit” or mind is sharing itself with you through the symbols on this screen. The symbols are the means by which a spiritual/immaterial activity is taking place: thoughts are being transferred between minds through the medium of words/signs.You do notice that Atheism is rising, especially amongst the younger generation. I attribute that to kids now being much smarter than to just listen to stories and are logically figuring out that the bible is really a great story book.7. Concerning things taught in school, you miss my point. I was simply pointing out that just because something is taught doesn't mean it is wrong. I would argue that religious faith is a vital force for developing virtue and moral goodness in human communities and that it provides an organizing framework for interpreting one's existence and meaning in the world. Schools don't necessarily teach this (although many have and do throughout our history) but they do presuppose a framework for understanding things that is expressed in the other specific disciplines tha are taught in school.
My experience of young atheists is not that they are “smarter.” Most of those I deal with don’t even have a basic knowledge of what they are rejecting. I also think the perceived and actual inconsistencies of organized religion contribute to this as well. If there were more holy people living consistently with what they claimed to believe, I think atheism would largely disappear. I would recommend two interesting books related to these claims. First, Paul Vitz’s, book, “The Faith of the Fatherless,” and Alister McGrath’s book, “The Twilight of Atheism.” The first is by a psychologist that teaches at NYU. He uses the method of psychology to conclude there is a large amount of clinical and historical data to support the conclusion that atheism is largely the effect of family developmental disfunction. McGrath’s (and Oxford professor, theologian and philosopher, specialist in philosophy of science) book gives an enlightening description of the rise of atheism since the Enlightenment and seeks to identify its primary causes and what its historical effects are. Both are very good.It depends on how you view that faith. Do you think Islamic faith being taught to Muslims is moral enough to teach to christian children?8. Many things signify Jesus was the Son of God. One is that he predicted he would die and rise again from the dead. Those who saw him alive after his death died affirming it was true. Christianity is a historical effect of that claim. I believe it is true. To say that this is the only reason to believe Jesus is the Son of God, however, would be a radical understatement. If you ask a man or woman who loves his/her spouse, tell me in one setence why you trust your spouse, he/she would probably find it difficult to answer. An informed Christian will also find it difficult to offer a brief answer. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because I believe the entire Old Testament prepares for his coming (and yes, there are many prophecies suggesting many things about Jesus). I can't read Isaiah 53, for instance, without seeing Jesus predicted in every line. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because his teachings resonate with me. I find his words, actions, authority, and love convincing and compelling. I find my life profoundly enriched in every way by the beliefs and guidance of Christianity. I could go on and on but obviously none of this is convincing to you without having shared the same experiences. Like the person who has not loved a wonderful husband or wife finds it difficult to understand what such a love is like, so it is, I'm afraid, that those who lack the experience of the beauty of Christianity will only misunderstand.
I am not a Muslim and I do think that Islam has an inferior set of moral values when compared to Christianity.Many scriptures in the old testament describe just how a king would act with his kingdom. In fact the majority of morals actually came from within clans and families, then as they grew and had leaders, those leaders dictated what is right to do. It's the same today with families. What you believe is what your kids learn to be moral, but it may not be the same for another family that has the same religion. I can't think of any religion that stands behind killing just to killing, stealing just to steal so those basics are set. But you don't need religion to figure that one out. Morals are subjective at best even within religous factions.0 -
That's nice. But it ain't the bible that so many christians cherish as their book of choice to follow.You might want to look into the Dead Sea Scrolls. At least one book of the OT is present (Isaiah, as it happens, the book most frequently cited as containing prophetic Christian material), 100% consistent with current versions, and about 150 years prior to Christ. For what it is worth.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I don’t know anyone who takes the Lord of the Rings to be a historical account; plenty take the biblical sources to be historical. Your first sentence is not convincing. You are saying that we can only consider as historically valuable sources that are entirely neutral or are opposed to something. Why can’t someone who believes in Jesus and saw his life serve as a good witness to him? Why do I have look for someone who saw Jesus but didn’t believe in him in order to have a “good” source? That just doesn’t sound right. Of course, there are ancient historical references to Jesus outside the Bible and apart from those who believed in Jesus. There are the two famous texts in Josephus’ histories (1st century Jewish source). There are early Roman references to the Christians and their belief in “the Christ” who died by crucifixion in Jerusalem (Pliny, Herodotus). There are also some references to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud (oral traditions recorded around AD 200). There are also many secondary corroborations (e.g., Josephus mentions various people who are also part of the biblical story-line, John the Baptist, James, Pilate, etc.).Without corroborating objective evidence, you can't really use christian writings as "proof" of the existence of Jesus, and the use of citations that come from christian apologists is not very useful either. The idea that "more books have been written about jesus" also serves as "proof" is equally weak. Over 100 million copies of "Lord of the Rings" have been sold--that doesn't prove the existence of Hobbits.
Who invented historical “evidence”? I’m not sure what you have in mind in your second paragraph.The need for christian writers to "prove" the existence of Jesus by exaggerating and even inventing historical "evidence" seems particularly insecure for a religion that has inspired "billions of people giving their lives to follow".
I think this issue makes all the difference in the world. If Jesus is the incarnate God, his life, death and resurrection take on infinite value. If Jesus was just a man or an invented figure, there are an awful lot of deceived people. I think the issue is of enormous importance. Either Jesus is worth everything or he is worth very little. I don’t see much room for a middle position.It doesn't really make any difference, does it?
I again disagree that there is “little historical evidence.” We have enough to keep full-time historians and scholars of all sorts busy for a lifetime. We have a mountain of literature before the time of Jesus, the New Testament documents, hundreds of texts in the few centuries after Jesus, tons of archaeological data that aid in reconstructing the first-century world, the foundations, structures and art of churches, houses, catacombs, etc. There is more data of various sorts than one individual can assimilate in a lifetime. If you set your standard of what constitutes “evidence” as a moving target, always tossing aside the data that we do have in search of something else, of course you will be dissatisfied. For those who are inclined to sympathetically look at the evidence, there is a ton to consider.I see the question as essentially being of two parts. The first is "was there an actual person, whatever his nature, named Jesus who lived and preached in Galilee and Judea approx 2000 years? Like I said, I find it interesting that there is so little actual historical evidence. There is little or nothing in the way of records, government accounts, physical evidence, etc. There are no eyewitness accounts. You don't identify your 27 "sources", but I suspect I have read most of them, and all are hearsay, and arguments can be made that some have been altered and others only restate current thinking and historical interpretation of the time they were written.
I appreciate your comments about Christianity as the historical effect of something profound that happened in the first century. I agree that this is a powerful argument. What I don’t understand is why you choose to be historically agnostic about what caused this effect. You agree it was something powerful but then you choose to reject the biblical account of that cause. Why not take the New Testament accounts as reliable witnesses to something of monumental significance? Just because what we find is unusual and astonishing doesn’t mean it has to be rejected. We already know that we are looking for something that is unusual. Furthermore, I don’t see any reason to question the integrity of the biblical writers; if anything, they give every evidence of being sincere and trustworthy. (I recommend a chapter in Robert Stein’s book, “The Synoptic Problem,” entitled something like, “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.” He presents a series of arguments from within the Gospels that provide a solid basis for concluding that the Gospel writers worked very hard to present a sound memory of Jesus in their writings.)You made what I think is the most powerful and simple argument--probably the only one that needs to be made. Just like we "prove" the existence of things like black holes and subatomic particles by what happens around them, the fact that--whatever happened in that part of the world 2000 years ago--a message emerged that resonated then and now with a vast number of people is pretty powerful evidence that there was someone to initiate that message. I don't think a movement like that, occurring as it did in such a compressed period of time, it something that can just happen spontaneously.
On “archetypes,” I agree that there are themes or archetypes that seem to transcend culture and historical contexts. This is highly interesting and I think points to a common human nature that we all share along with certain internal drives, hopes, fears, etc. I would suggest, however, that admitting universal archetypes does not imply that the significance of Jesus is relativized or undermined. It is Christian belief that what we all long for on a very deep level is “answered” or addressed in the person, life and death of Jesus. In other words, in Jesus the universal longings of human beings find a concrete, historical answer. Human beings are, on one level, beings who transcend space and time in our interior longings. We are also beings of time and space, however. God, we believe, brings both together in a moment in time and provides supreme guidance and direction in Jesus. I can respect your sympathies on these points but I don’t think they require the conclusions you draw.I think there is some significance in pointing out or arguing in favor of what I see are the "human" origins of religion, and this (finally) goes back to the original topic statement. I do think that most religions reflect human concepts rather than "divine" ones. I think that man creates god in man's image and likeness, not the other way around. I do think that many of the elements of the Jesus narrative use symbolism and themes that have been common to man and man's religions throughout recorded history. A person of "faith" might look at these common ideas as "proof" of god's influence since the beginning of time. People like me see them as evidence of archetypes that are an inherent part of humanity and so they manifest themselves in repeating themes across different era, cultures, and religions.
Thank you for your openness to discussion and consideration of these points!0 -
Historical evidence maybe. But you have to admit that those authors have their own accounts that may or may not be true.So you are comparing a million copies of the most recent best seller in 2011 to the vast collection of authors over the past 2,000 years who wrote about Jesus? I don't think that's comparable.
And there is a lot of historical evidence for Jesus. But you want to discount all the Christians who wrote about Jesus? That's ridiculous. That's like saying that you would like to learn about Buddaism but you want to discount all those Buddists that wrote about their religion.
There is sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus available. All one has to do is look. But if you don't want to see it or believe it, nothing can be said or written that will be sufficient.
Most christians believe in jesus because they grew up that way. I totally believe that if NO ONE grew up with any religion then someone introduced this story to them at let's say 30 years old, the chances of having conversion would be much less given the fact that there is a fast rising belief in being Agnostic or Atheism.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Hercules and Horus are mythical stories. The story of Jesus Christ is not.
Aliens is a fictional movie. Lord Xenu the space titan is real!
Assertions with no evidence are meaningless.
I'm not convinced that Jesus Christ is a real person who existed. The only evidence comes from the bible. I've read up on this a bit, anyone who'd like to provide some i'd appreciate it. But i'll tell you now don't waste time with Josephus.
Agreed. There are plenty of sources saying Jesus was a real dude... and he may have been... but there are also SEVEN whole books and EIGHT wildly famous movies about some orphan with a scar on his forehead that can do magic. So clearly, he must be real- otherwise why would we have all the awesome stories about how cool he is?0 -
Agreed. There are plenty of sources saying Jesus was a real dude... and he may have been... but there are also SEVEN whole books and EIGHT wildly famous movies about some orphan with a scar on his forehead that can do magic. So clearly, he must be real- otherwise why would we have all the awesome stories about how cool he is?
Come on, now. Does anyone believe Harry Potter is real? Um, no.0 -
Okay let's discuss the "virgin birth" to help dispell the so called prophecy from the old testament. IMO, without the virgin birth, jesus was no more than just a man preaching about some magical being. Now if it could be proven that the actual birth happened, well I might change my mind.
Realistically I can't think of anyone who would believe that with the exception of IVF, that a female today could be impregnated without sex. Somehow christians believe that this story of jesus supercedes other man-god stories because of some prophecy.
First off let's find the scripture to prove it. I'll leave that up to christians to post.
I'll give you a hint: it's in Isiah.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
We tell kids Santa Claus is real. And they believe it. Lol, for christians, jesus and god is the adult santa claus.Agreed. There are plenty of sources saying Jesus was a real dude... and he may have been... but there are also SEVEN whole books and EIGHT wildly famous movies about some orphan with a scar on his forehead that can do magic. So clearly, he must be real- otherwise why would we have all the awesome stories about how cool he is?
Come on, now. Does anyone believe Harry Potter is real? Um, no.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Okay let's discuss the "virgin birth" to help dispell the so called prophecy from the old testament. IMO, without the virgin birth, jesus was no more than just a man preaching about some magical being. Now if it could be proven that the actual birth happened, well I might change my mind.
Realistically I can't think of anyone who would believe that with the exception of IVF, that a female today could be impregnated without sex. Somehow christians believe that this story of jesus supercedes other man-god stories because of some prophecy.
First off let's find the scripture to prove it. I'll leave that up to christians to post.
I'll give you a hint: it's in Isiah.
Seems like you're more interested in playing games than actually debating. If you know the scripture enough to give a hint, why are you posing the question?0 -
The Epic of Gilgamesh has many parts that parallel the Bible including the Great Flood, the story of Adam and Eve, etc but was written thousands of years before Christ was reportedly born. Interesting.
The Old Testament was also written before Christ was born
Questions to those who say that Jesus never existed.....then why did we for so long call "BCE", "BC" or "Common Era" "anodomini" (the year of our LORD) Really? We divided history based off of a myth?
Yes. We absolutely did. No doubt in my mind. We divide history based upon a shallowly agreed upon date for many reasons- the most salient reason being simplicity. Read up on the adoption of the Gregorian calendar. Many countries didn't start using this system until the 1900s because at some point, the whole world has to agree on a way to communicate via dates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
Given that Christianity is the world's largest religion, and that it's primary followers (Westerners) control much of the world's finances and resources, it makes perfect sense that we would adopt this calendar.0 -
Agreed. There are plenty of sources saying Jesus was a real dude... and he may have been... but there are also SEVEN whole books and EIGHT wildly famous movies about some orphan with a scar on his forehead that can do magic. So clearly, he must be real- otherwise why would we have all the awesome stories about how cool he is?Come on, now. Does anyone believe Harry Potter is real? Um, no.
Seriously. How long to children believe there is a Santa Claus? 8-9 years, tops for most?We tell kids Santa Claus is real. And they believe it. Lol, for christians, jesus and god is the adult santa claus.0 -
That's the point. The New Testament was written 100-300 years after the supposed events occurred. Who's to say whether or not people will believe Harry Potter was a real guy in 100-300 years. Probably no one, but you change that word "magic" to "miracles," and suddenly you have a following.0
-
As far as arguments for or against you all are light years ahead of my thought process.
But if we are talking mythology... don't know if anyone has mentioned the story of Danae and the Shower of Gold yet? Danae was shut in a tower and wasn't allowed out basically. Zeus saw her and fell in love with her, but instead of impregnating her traditionally, he basically had sex with her "in a shower of gold" Danae gave birth to a son, Perseus.
Everyone was surprised when Danae suddenly had a son-- for no one was in the tower with her, at all. So basically, they thought she had a virgin birth.
And of course, Danae's son was prophesied to kill Danae's father someday, so dear old Daddy put them in some sort of chest or something, and sent them away by sea.
Just thought it was an interesting story to throw out there.0 -
That's the point. The New Testament was written 100-300 years after the supposed events occurred. Who's to say whether or not people will believe Harry Potter was a real guy in 100-300 years. Probably no one, but you change that word "magic" to "miracles," and suddenly you have a following.
I think you're insulting the human intellect by suggesting some people in 100-300 years will believe Harry Potter is a real guy. Quite a difference between magic, movie special effects, and miracles performed by Jesus.0 -
Seriously. How long to children believe there is a Santa Claus? 8-9 years, tops for most?
How long did it take me to leave the Christian faith? About 17 years, when I learned so much about Christianity and science that I couldn't see any possible way that it a) is real, and b) matters in the slightest.
I have no problems with people having faith. Seriously, I don't mind. I'm agnostic though, so I agree- he might be out there- but I very seriously, highly doubt it. And if he is, the books about him paint him to be a pretty vain jerk. And before you ask, yes, I've read the bible. I've read it twice, I went to church every Sunday in my youth, I was even president of First Priorities (my school's church group). I went to Lutheridge (http://www.llmi.net/) every summer as a kid (church camp), so I do know a bit about Christianity.0 -
That's the point. The New Testament was written 100-300 years after the supposed events occurred. Who's to say whether or not people will believe Harry Potter was a real guy in 100-300 years. Probably no one, but you change that word "magic" to "miracles," and suddenly you have a following.
I think you're insulting the human intellect by suggesting some people in 100-300 years will believe Harry Potter is a real guy. Quite a difference between magic, movie special effects, and miracles performed by Jesus.
I'm not making my point clearly here. I'm not saying people in 300 years will believe in Harry Potter. In fact, I know they won't. But what I am saying is if you interchange the word "magic" with "miracles," then yes- I think it's possible. If framed properly, people will believe it. Look at Scientology. That farce of a religion was designed to make money and was created less than a century ago. It currently boasts 8 million followers (though like most religions, those numbers are padded with non-practicing), and has been identified as a legitimate religion. With proper branding, people would buy it.
What Jesus did could easily be equated to magic tricks, slight of hand, etc. But call it miracles, and suddenly people believe it. I don't know- I wasn't there. But I'll personally take science over hearsay any day.0 -
You might want to look into the Dead Sea Scrolls. At least one book of the OT is present (Isaiah, as it happens, the book most frequently cited as containing prophetic Christian material), 100% consistent with current versions, and about 150 years prior to Christ. For what it is worth.That's nice. But it ain't the bible that so many christians cherish as their book of choice to follow.
Well, actually all Christians that I know of have Isaiah in the Old Testament. The point is that we have physical evidence that Isaiah existed centuries before the time of Jesus and Isaiah’s prophecies of Jesus are some of the most amazing and cherished among Christians. The “Dead Sea Scrolls” refers to thousands of manuscripts or portions of them that we discovered in the mid-20th century. They are the remains of a library belonging to a first-century Jewish sect that lived in the deserts by the Dead Sea. Much of what was found there was copies of Old Testament books of the Bible.0 -
I'm not making my point clearly here. I'm not saying people in 300 years will believe in Harry Potter. In fact, I know they won't. But what I am saying is if you interchange the word "magic" with "miracles," then yes- I think it's possible. If framed properly, people will believe it. Look at Scientology. That farce of a religion was designed to make money and was created less than a century ago. It currently boasts 8 million followers (though like most religions, those numbers are padded with non-practicing), and has been identified as a legitimate religion. With proper branding, people would buy it.
What Jesus did could easily be equated to magic tricks, slight of hand, etc. But call it miracles, and suddenly people believe it. I don't know- I wasn't there. But I'll personally take science over hearsay any day.
Scientology is a self-help movement that thrives because of its secretiveness and claims of success. My guess is that it will die off when it ceases to be a fad among the Hollywood types. We’ll have to wait and see, I guess. In any case, I don’t see anything in Scientology that is comparable to Christianity so far as the way in which it arose and the kinds of claims upon which it is based. I have never heard of Scientology claims of miracles like those we find in the Bible.
Concerning Jesus, I’m not sure how you produce a resurrection of yourself after a Roman crucifixion.
Concerning science, I’ve had this argument before but I can’t seem to find anybody who claims to follow science only that can support that claim. First, you live your life each day by “faith” in countless ways. Even your trust in science is largely based on faith, I suppose, unless you are a professional scientist who has experimentally “proven” every conclusion you accept. Additionally, science is based on a series of assumptions that cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method but are assumed by it (e.g., the reliability of our senses, the soundness of our logical reasoning, including inductive an deductive logic, that reality is orderly/regular and predictable, that human thought corresponds to and has the power to understand the workings of nature).
If you realize that human life is largely an exercise in faith and if you believe in God, miracles are quite possible. In other words, your world-view excludes the possibility of miracles and therefore you are not open to the evidence for them. If you came to believe in God you might find the evidence quite attractive. Your approach systematically excludes the possibility of miracles and therefore you cannot look at the evidence objectively. You lump all claims of miracle into the same category but you would not do that for science. There have been plenty of failures of science as well as hoaxes in the name of science. That doesn’t destroy your general confidence in it, however. I believe God can do miracles. I look at claims of miracles to weed out the good from the bad. Your “theory” doesn’t allow you to take this objective approach.0 -
I'm going to address a few of your specifics here, as I am a legitimate actual scientist. I am a psychological researcher who abides by the scientific method, and so sound scientific reasoning is something that, yes, I have a great deal of faith in. That does not undermine it's legitimacy. Scientific research, combined with my faith in it's methods and results add to my assertions. You have faith alone, no scientific support. Point one for science.Scientology is a self-help movement that thrives because of its secretiveness and claims of success. My guess is that it will die off when it ceases to be a fad among the Hollywood types.
I sure hope so. Many religions come and go, and few have enjoyed the fellowship of Christianity, but that does not mean that Christianity is the one true religion. That's a logical fallacy. Just because many agree, doesn't make it so. Many people believe that if you shave your hair, it will grow back thicker and darker. That is patently false. Thanks to physics, it puts across the perception of being thicker and darker, but it is not actually so. I would be happy to elaborate, but that is a discussion for another time.Concerning Jesus, I’m not sure how you produce a resurrection of yourself after a Roman crucifixion.
Neither am I. I'm also not inclined to take the word of a book published long ago without any historical support aside from it's own text and other canonized texts as fact. How do I know that he was actually a)real, b)crucified, and c)risen?First, you live your life each day by “faith” in countless ways. Even your trust in science is largely based on faith
Agreed. But it's not faith alone. It's faith and the results that come from experimentation.unless you are a professional scientist who has experimentally “proven” every conclusion you accept
I am a professional scientist, but I must say that I am disappointed in any professional scientists you have met if they ever use the word "prove." We do not, and cannot prove anything for exactly the reasons you've outlined-the faith in our methods of measurement may be misplaced. We cannot be sure our methods are reliable and valid, and so we do not prove. We show, we provide support, but we never prove. Science is an iterative process which results in supporting literature which leads us to ultimately provide an assertion. One which can be revoked when new evidence suggests we are wrong. This is why the "an egg is good for you, an egg is bad for you" debate rages on. We cannot prove, only show.
This is why I am agnostic, not an atheist. In my mind, absolutism is folly in either direction. I am more inclined to believe the preponderance of evidence which suggests that there is no god, but a scientist to the core, I refuse to outright state that it is impossible. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.If you realize that human life is largely an exercise in faith and if you believe in God, miracles are quite possible.
That's one heck of an assumption of fact. And no, I don't. So sadly, I guess a miracle will never materialize for me. Oh well.If you came to believe in God you might find the evidence quite attractive.
I did once. It was the attraction of science and logic which led me away from it. I wanted to believe so badly, I wanted it to be true. Ultimately, my logic prevailed- and I am much happier for it.
You lump all claims of miracle into the same category but you would not do that for science. There have been plenty of failures of science as well as hoaxes in the name of science. That doesn’t destroy your general confidence in it, however. I believe God can do miracles. I look at claims of miracles to weed out the good from the bad. Your “theory” doesn’t allow you to take this objective approach.
Here you seem to be making the incorrect assumption that I am an atheist. Indeed, I am not. As I have stated throughout my argument, I am agnostic. Therefore, I acknowledge that there may be a god. Truly, I do believe it is possible. I just highly doubt it because of the lack of proof. And no, the failures of science do not diminish my faith in the scientific method. If anything, it strengthens it. For something to be falsifiable, for something to be testable, that means we can answer some questions. Philosophy, religion, psychoanalysis (the early Freudian stuff)- all those are experiments for the mind, not truly testable theories. In the search of truth, if we had no failures, I would have no trust in the findings. Null results are valuable in their own right, because they show us that one path is closed, but we can test all the other paths too. Religion does not allow for such awesomeness.
Please do not take this as a personal attack on your religion. Religion does a good many things for a good many people. It also does ill. So long as you act responsibly with your religion, and do not do harm to people who believe differently than you, then I have no quarrels with your beliefs.0 -
This is the perfect example of the elitist attitude that Christians have.
quote]Emphasis on the virgin birth is very important here or else jesus really is nothing more than a mortal being a prophet instead of the son of god as claimed. It's part of catholic mass, christian faith and really what separates them from other religions. So for the 2 apostles to not even mention such an important detail...........well. It's like saying here "just eat clean" and you'll be okay, but leaving out the detail that you'd still have to be in calorie deficit to lose weight. Kinda important to keep that in and not in "silence".
Also why not just let kids grow up without any religion at all and then let the "holy spirit" touch them when it's ready? Conversion happens when others CONVINCE others. In the Philippines for example, if there were no missionaries, they probably would still be believing in the superstitions ( which are still imminant today) and spirits before they were converted. If the "holy spirit" really touched them, then they wouldn't need missionaries to go there.
Things that are taught in school are relevant for actual knowledge to survive in the world. Man can most certainly survive without christianity. The Muslims, Buddists, Taoists, have done it for thousands of years.
The question really is was jesus really the son of god, or just another mythological tale? What signifies he was? Was there a prophecy that he really would be the one? Waiting to counter this.
1. Your first sentence is simply a non sequitur. If Jesus had a human father that would no more require that Jesus is "nothing more than a mortal man" than the fact that he had a human mother requires that he is "nothing more than a mortal man." I believe Jesus did not have a human father but your logic here simply is not convincing. What makes it impossible that God could unite himself to a human nature ("Incarnation") that is produced through normal human procreation? I see nothing that makes this impossible.
2. The birth of Jesus is not what separates Christianity from other religions. Muslims, for instance, admit the virgin birth of Jesus but deny his death on the cross. Regarding the Catholic mass, the center of the mass is the Last Supper of Jesus and sacramental participation in the sacrifice of Jesus. The focus is simply not on the birth of Jesus.
3. You keep referring to "two Apostles" not mentioning the birth of Jesus (presumably you are referring to the two Gospels that do not mention the birth of Jesus). First, one of those Gospels was not written by an Apostle (Mark). The other one (John) is apparently written to supplement Matthew, Mark and Luke and therefore very rarely repeats the same things they present. I get the feeling you lack the basic familiarity with the New Testament that is required to adequately evaluate your claims.
4. By raising kids without sharing your religious faith you are teaching them an attitude towards religion. You are telling them that your religion means so little to you that you don't even want to share it with them. If I have something wonderful that I want my kids to share and experience, I make it available to them.
5. The Holy Spirit works through human instruments. What you are suggesting is a very unChristian approach; what you are describing is more like Gnosticism. Christians believe that God is known and revealed through his creation. This is one of the central reasons that we believe God became "incarnate" in Jesus. God draws near to humans within the creation rather than in spite of it.
6. Yes, conversions take place when people are convinced. That must mean that a lot of people have found Christianity convincing through the centuries. Again, you make an illogical leap by implying the Holy Spirit acts without means or instruments.
7. Concerning things taught in school, you miss my point. I was simply pointing out that just because something is taught doesn't mean it is wrong. I would argue that religious faith is a vital force for developing virtue and moral goodness in human communities and that it provides an organizing framework for interpreting one's existence and meaning in the world. Schools don't necessarily teach this (although many have and do throughout our history) but they do presuppose a framework for understanding things that is expressed in the other specific disciplines tha are taught in school.
8. Many things signify Jesus was the Son of God. One is that he predicted he would die and rise again from the dead. Those who saw him alive after his death died affirming it was true. Christianity is a historical effect of that claim. I believe it is true. To say that this is the only reason to believe Jesus is the Son of God, however, would be a radical understatement. If you ask a man or woman who loves his/her spouse, tell me in one setence why you trust your spouse, he/she would probably find it difficult to answer. An informed Christian will also find it difficult to offer a brief answer. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because I believe the entire Old Testament prepares for his coming (and yes, there are many prophecies suggesting many things about Jesus). I can't read Isaiah 53, for instance, without seeing Jesus predicted in every line. I'm convinced Jesus is the Son of God because his teachings resonate with me. I find his words, actions, authority, and love convincing and compelling. I find my life profoundly enriched in every way by the beliefs and guidance of Christianity. I could go on and on but obviously none of this is convincing to you without having shared the same experiences. Like the person who has not loved a wonderful husband or wife finds it difficult to understand what such a love is like, so it is, I'm afraid, that those who lack the experience of the beauty of Christianity will only misunderstand.
[/quote]0 -
This is the perfect example of the elitist attitude that Christians have.
Care to explain your opinion?0 -
Our debate with the original story keeps running off in tangents. I'm trying to get a reasonable reason as to why jesus story really is really true compared to other man god stories of mythology.Okay let's discuss the "virgin birth" to help dispell the so called prophecy from the old testament. IMO, without the virgin birth, jesus was no more than just a man preaching about some magical being. Now if it could be proven that the actual birth happened, well I might change my mind.
Realistically I can't think of anyone who would believe that with the exception of IVF, that a female today could be impregnated without sex. Somehow christians believe that this story of jesus supercedes other man-god stories because of some prophecy.
First off let's find the scripture to prove it. I'll leave that up to christians to post.
I'll give you a hint: it's in Isiah.
Seems like you're more interested in playing games than actually debating. If you know the scripture enough to give a hint, why are you posing the question?
I've already stated that jesus story isn't original. It's a copy cat. So now burden of proof is on christians to show me in what way it's not. I'll even accept scripture from the bible from this.
Continue.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Yes. But if you keep feeding them that he was real they may believe it until they die. IMO that's what christianity does. Keep the dream alive.
Seriously. How long to children believe there is a Santa Claus? 8-9 years, tops for most?
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
If the world suffered a major catastrophe, and books survived, and a 100,000 years later "new" humans discovered them, how would they know that Harry Potter wasn't real if they had no evidence?That's the point. The New Testament was written 100-300 years after the supposed events occurred. Who's to say whether or not people will believe Harry Potter was a real guy in 100-300 years. Probably no one, but you change that word "magic" to "miracles," and suddenly you have a following.
I think you're insulting the human intellect by suggesting some people in 100-300 years will believe Harry Potter is a real guy. Quite a difference between magic, movie special effects, and miracles performed by Jesus.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I'm going to address a few of your specifics here, as I am a legitimate actual scientist. I am a psychological researcher who abides by the scientific method, and so sound scientific reasoning is something that, yes, I have a great deal of faith in. That does not undermine it's legitimacy. Scientific research, combined with my faith in it's methods and results add to my assertions. You have faith alone, no scientific support. Point one for science.Scientology is a self-help movement that thrives because of its secretiveness and claims of success. My guess is that it will die off when it ceases to be a fad among the Hollywood types.
I sure hope so. Many religions come and go, and few have enjoyed the fellowship of Christianity, but that does not mean that Christianity is the one true religion. That's a logical fallacy. Just because many agree, doesn't make it so. Many people believe that if you shave your hair, it will grow back thicker and darker. That is patently false. Thanks to physics, it puts across the perception of being thicker and darker, but it is not actually so. I would be happy to elaborate, but that is a discussion for another time.Concerning Jesus, I’m not sure how you produce a resurrection of yourself after a Roman crucifixion.
Neither am I. I'm also not inclined to take the word of a book published long ago without any historical support aside from it's own text and other canonized texts as fact. How do I know that he was actually a)real, b)crucified, and c)risen?First, you live your life each day by “faith” in countless ways. Even your trust in science is largely based on faith
Agreed. But it's not faith alone. It's faith and the results that come from experimentation.unless you are a professional scientist who has experimentally “proven” every conclusion you accept
I am a professional scientist, but I must say that I am disappointed in any professional scientists you have met if they ever use the word "prove." We do not, and cannot prove anything for exactly the reasons you've outlined-the faith in our methods of measurement may be misplaced. We cannot be sure our methods are reliable and valid, and so we do not prove. We show, we provide support, but we never prove. Science is an iterative process which results in supporting literature which leads us to ultimately provide an assertion. One which can be revoked when new evidence suggests we are wrong. This is why the "an egg is good for you, an egg is bad for you" debate rages on. We cannot prove, only show.
This is why I am agnostic, not an atheist. In my mind, absolutism is folly in either direction. I am more inclined to believe the preponderance of evidence which suggests that there is no god, but a scientist to the core, I refuse to outright state that it is impossible. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.If you realize that human life is largely an exercise in faith and if you believe in God, miracles are quite possible.
That's one heck of an assumption of fact. And no, I don't. So sadly, I guess a miracle will never materialize for me. Oh well.If you came to believe in God you might find the evidence quite attractive.
I did once. It was the attraction of science and logic which led me away from it. I wanted to believe so badly, I wanted it to be true. Ultimately, my logic prevailed- and I am much happier for it.
You lump all claims of miracle into the same category but you would not do that for science. There have been plenty of failures of science as well as hoaxes in the name of science. That doesn’t destroy your general confidence in it, however. I believe God can do miracles. I look at claims of miracles to weed out the good from the bad. Your “theory” doesn’t allow you to take this objective approach.
Here you seem to be making the incorrect assumption that I am an atheist. Indeed, I am not. As I have stated throughout my argument, I am agnostic. Therefore, I acknowledge that there may be a god. Truly, I do believe it is possible. I just highly doubt it because of the lack of proof. And no, the failures of science do not diminish my faith in the scientific method. If anything, it strengthens it. For something to be falsifiable, for something to be testable, that means we can answer some questions. Philosophy, religion, psychoanalysis (the early Freudian stuff)- all those are experiments for the mind, not truly testable theories. In the search of truth, if we had no failures, I would have no trust in the findings. Null results are valuable in their own right, because they show us that one path is closed, but we can test all the other paths too. Religion does not allow for such awesomeness.
Please do not take this as a personal attack on your religion. Religion does a good many things for a good many people. It also does ill. So long as you act responsibly with your religion, and do not do harm to people who believe differently than you, then I have no quarrels with your beliefs.
Thank you for your comments. Here are a few replies.
1. I never made the argument that Christianity is the only true religion because it has endured and many people like it. There may be other things that lead me to the conclusion that Christianity is, as we like to say, the “fullness of God’s revealed truth” in this world. As a Catholic, I certainly acknowledge that other religions have various “truths”; indeed, all people are able to access many things that are true by examining the world of their experience as well as their own interior conscious lives.
2.I know Jesus actually existed, was crucified and rose again using the standard criteria of historical investigation. If you ask how we know any event of the past really happened we would go through the normal ways that a valid memory of the past survives into the present. Very few serious historians that I know of find it credible to question the fact of Jesus and his death. Some argue that the resurrection is a “trans-historical” event since, if it happened, it could not be investigated using the normal criteria of historical research. On the other hand, I think the historical sources argue solidly for the conclusion that the “footprints” of the resurrection are deeply imprinted on history. Christianity is a historical effect of the claim of the resurrection. I recommend N. T. Wright’s book, “The Resurrection of the Son of God.” It is a very thorough discussion of the resurrection from a critical-historical perspective.
3.Christian faith also involves “experimentation.” It is largely of a different sort that the empirical/hard sciences since we are dealing with a world-view/framework choice. The better analogy for religious faith is interpersonal human experience since we are dealing with a kind of life-commitment, something science does not require of those who experiment. We may be able to draw general conclusions about the structures of human experience with respect to religious experience by cross-cultural and cross-historical analysis but we certainly can’t treat religious faith like we can the behavior of a molecule.
4.I appreciate your admission that “science does not prove.” I’m sure we could quibble about terminology and semantics but I think I see your point. I do disagree with your claim that the evidence supports the conclusion there is no God. If you begin to find an answer to that question with a Procrustean “grid,” of course you will not find God. For instance, if you will only accept a “quantitative” solution to a problem, you will obviously dismiss qualitative features of reality (as in the current mind-body debate in respect to “qualia”). If one begins to explore the question of God with an openness to a positive answer, I think there are profound reasons to believe in God.
5.Regarding your autobiographical description of your experience, there are plenty of others who went a very different path. I’ve made it a habit to read after people on different sides of this question and I find it increasingly obvious that it is not the scientific “evidence” that ultimately directs a person to a conclusion on God but a more fundamental, more metaphysical (in the classical philosophical sense) set of considerations.
6.Concerning the “testability” of religious claims and those of science, I do think religious claims are testable. In fact, history has a pretty large “trash dump” of tried and failed religions. The test will largely be one of coherence and explanatory power. Since religious systems are comprehensive of everything (at least the “great” ones), you cannot stand outside the system in order to judge its truth-value. You have to judge the religious system by its power to explain from within. My main point in my earlier remarks was that science operates based on a huge set of assumptions that cannot be demonstrated from within science. These include (as already indicated), the law of non-contradiction, logical laws (validity of inductive and deductive logic), validity of sense experience, the validity of thought when applied to material reality, etc. The scientist assumes these are valid and then proceeds to test and experiment and theorize. Christian faith claims that these more basic structures of reason that transcend empirical demonstration are expressions/evidences of a “Mind” that ultimately grounds all “knowing.” If you reject such a Mind, you are left to establish the validity of logic (if you choose to explore that question) solely from within the subjective individual mind (since you paradigmatically exclude a transcendent ground). The history of modern philosophy, beginning with Descartes, suggests this is a dead-end street. Once you admit the problem of establishing a certain link between subjectivity and objectivity and must do without a transcendent ground, it is philosophically impossible to “prove”, for instance, that the world of sense experience is anything more than an elaborate dream or experiment in a vat somewhere. Science largely ignores the whole matter and proceeds as if the foundations of human knowledge are certain but the more basic questions are left ignored in the background. If the certainty that we experience in our use of logical structures is a kind of “sharing” in a supreme Mind and if the “knowability” of the world by the human mind is an expression of the fact that it is ordered by a Mind that willed its existence, we have established an ultimate basis of confidence in our mental processes, sense experience, etc. You see, at the end of the day, a person must make an existential choice about whether reality is ultimately rational or if we are lost in subjectivity and have nothing upon which to ground the ineluctable certainty that we experience when we encounter reality.0 -
Lol, Nostradamus has made many a "prophecy" and people who believe it can manipulate "evidence" to prove it. You've got to remember that interpretation makes a difference. For instance, isn't it true now that the mass in catholicism is changing responses because for some reason now they want to correct interpretation from Latin? Why did it take this long and are people in mass still getting used to it?You might want to look into the Dead Sea Scrolls. At least one book of the OT is present (Isaiah, as it happens, the book most frequently cited as containing prophetic Christian material), 100% consistent with current versions, and about 150 years prior to Christ. For what it is worth.That's nice. But it ain't the bible that so many christians cherish as their book of choice to follow.
Well, actually all Christians that I know of have Isaiah in the Old Testament. The point is that we have physical evidence that Isaiah existed centuries before the time of Jesus and Isaiah’s prophecies of Jesus are some of the most amazing and cherished among Christians. The “Dead Sea Scrolls” refers to thousands of manuscripts or portions of them that we discovered in the mid-20th century. They are the remains of a library belonging to a first-century Jewish sect that lived in the deserts by the Dead Sea. Much of what was found there was copies of Old Testament books of the Bible.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0
This discussion has been closed.