Do christians make it up as they go along?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The testimony (supposed, as the work in question is now lost) of Thallus is also worthless on the historicity question. Julius Africanus, in a surviving fragment, states that Thallus in the period before 221 A.D., wrote that the darkness which supposedly covered the earth at the time of the Crucifixion was due to the death of Jesus. He is merely telling what the Christians of the time believed. We have no evidence at all that there ever even was an eclipse at the time when Jesus was supposedly crucified.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


When you add up all of the following facts, the case for the existence of Jesus as an historical person becomes rather remote: 1) there are no proven, legitimate references to the existence of Jesus in any contemporary source outside of the New Testament (which is really not a contemporary source, as it was written from 30 to 70 years after Jesus supposedly died), 2) There is no evidence that the town of Nazareth, from which Jesus' mother supposedly came, ever existed at the time he was supposedly living there, 3) the existence of Jesus is not necessary to explain the origin or growth of Christianity (were the Hindu gods real'?), 4) the New Testament accounts do not provide a real "biography" for Jesus until you look at the Gospels. The earlier Pauline epistles imply only that he was a god, and 5) the biblical accounts of the trial and death of Jesus are logically self-contradictory and legally impossible. Jesus could not have been executed under either Roman or Jewish law for what he did. Whatever you call what he did, it was not a capital offense under either system. Rather, it looks like someone is trying to make Old Testament prophecies of the death of the Messiah come true by fabricating a scenario which simply doesn't make sense legally.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I notice your first reference point is in relation to The daqvinci Code?
why do you choose this as some form of rebuttel?

It is you that has for whatever reason introduced into the discussion this book when everyone is in agreement it is a work of fiction.

As I have already mentioned I have not even read TDVC so your introduction of debunking a work of fiction is pretty moot.

Please don't just copy and paste from Here. Giving us this re-hashed, warmed over argument.

According to the T&C rules of ATS, you have to site your info, otherwise, it's plagiarism.


While I can't find any inscrutable PROOF of Jesus birth certificate or immunization records or such, I don't believe He wanted us to find him that way.
It's through faith and THAT'S why we have to seek Him.

There is PLENTY of proof that people called Christians were persecuted.
Whether they called Him Christus or Crestus is not an issue to me.

The apostles couldn't exactly write their testimony while running from pogroms, so the Gospels came to the public LATER than 1st century A.D.

Alexander the great's earliest biographies weren't written until 400 years AFTER his death. Furthermore His biographies are debatable.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies



Please don't just copy and paste from Here. Giving us this re-hashed, warmed over argument.

With the greatest respect dude, I didn't copy from there but thank you for making me aware of this info I'll endevour to study it and will endevour return the favour.

According to the T&C rules of ATS, you have to site your info, otherwise, it's plagiarism.

, i will endevor to obtain the authors permission to quote should I use any reference not available in the public domain, or protected by copyright. Neverthles this does not make my post any less valid.


While I can't find any inscrutable PROOF of Jesus birth certificate or immunization records or such, I don't believe He wanted us to find him that way.
It's through faith and THAT'S why we have to seek Him.

Again, with respect my post was in reply to one claiming the indisputable fact of the historicity of jesus.I respect your admtion that this cannot be done and that christianity is a matter of faith not fact.

There is PLENTY of proof that people called Christians were persecuted.
Whether they called Him Christus or Crestus is not an issue to me.

I have not disputed that christians were persecuted, however the reality of their god has been disputed for lack of evidence, which you have graciously agreed with. Your statement would be equally valid for the God Mithras who was worshipped by many and written abou,t does this make Mithras a real historical figure? According to your statement this does

The apostles couldn't exactly write their testimony while running from pogroms, so the Gospels came to the public LATER than 1st century A.D.

Again the evidence for the historiicity of the apostles is very vague, and as you state they didnt write anything themselves, so you basically have unknown scribes writing about unknown apostles writing about an unknown god, and nowhere else do these writings exist other than these writings themselves.
b]However, as you state this is no concern to you as it's a matter of faith and therfore no facts required, I respect you'r choice to believe what you wish.


Alexander the great's earliest biographies weren't written until 400 years AFTER his death. Furthermore His biographies are debatable.

Personally I find this a preposterous position to put yourself in, you've allready stated that your christian belief is based on faith no fact, however you still insist on trying to prove something with Alexander. I think you missed the bit where no one is currently claiming that he is a god right now. However how do we know if he actually existed as a reality let alone a god? Ah lets see, well he did happen to have historical family, he did happen to have coins minted with his mutton chops on them, he did happen to leave artifacts around the world where he decided to rape and conquer and so on and so on.

Interestingly enough it's the same type scholarship that tells the world about the life of Alexander that finds no evidence of Jesus

But nevertheless this doesnt matter as you've said because christianity is a matter of faith not fact, which again I can respect now I know where you actually stand in that there is no evidence required.

This was posted by Moocowman (I forgot to log in)

reply to post by Clearskies


Please don't just copy and paste from Here. Giving us this re-hashed, warmed over argument.

With the greatest respect dude, I didn't copy from there but thank you for making me aware of this info I'll endevour to study it and will endevour return the favour.

According to the T&C rules of ATS, you have to site your info, otherwise, it's plagiarism.

, i will endevor to obtain the authors permission to quote should I use any reference not available in the public domain, or protected by copyright. Neverthles this does not make my post any less valid.


While I can't find any inscrutable PROOF of Jesus birth certificate or immunization records or such, I don't believe He wanted us to find him that way.
It's through faith and THAT'S why we have to seek Him.

Again, with respect my post was in reply to one claiming the indisputable fact of the historicity of jesus.I respect your admtion that this cannot be done and that christianity is a matter of faith not fact.

There is PLENTY of proof that people called Christians were persecuted.
Whether they called Him Christus or Crestus is not an issue to me.

I have not disputed that christians were persecuted, however the reality of their god has been disputed for lack of evidence, which you have graciously agreed with. Your statement would be equally valid for the God Mithras who was worshipped by many and written about does this make Mithras a real historical figure? According to your statement this does

The apostles couldn't exactly write their testimony while running from pogroms, so the Gospels came to the public LATER than 1st century A.D.

Again the evidence for the historiicity of the apostles is very vague, and as you state they didnt write anything themselves, so you basically have unknown scribes writing about unknown apostles writing about an unknown god, and nowhere else do these writings exist other than these writings themselves.
b]However, as you state this is no concern to you as it's a matter of faith and therfore no facts required, I respect you'r choice to believe what you wish.


Alexander the great's earliest biographies weren't written until 400 years AFTER his death. Furthermore His biographies are debatable.

Personally I find this a preposterous position to put yourself in, you've allready stated that your christian belief is based on faith no fact, however you still insist on trying to prove something with Alexander. I think you missed the bit where no one is currently claiming that he is a god right now. However how do we know if he actually existed as a reality let alone a god? Ah lets see, well he did happen to have historical family, he did happen to have coins minted with his mutton chops on them, he did happen to leave artifacts around the world where he decided to rape and conquer and so on and so on.

Interestingly enough it's the same type scholarship that tells the world about the life of Alexander that finds no evidence of Jesus

But nevertheless this doesnt matter as you've said because christianity is a matter of faith not fact, which again I can respect now I know where you actually stand in that there is no evidence required.

Thank you for the discussion it has come a long way, and I feel as though I'm getting a better understanding of your religion. It appears that there are some such as yourself who will just come out and say "It doesnt matter if Jesus was real I just chose to believe he was real"

However, there appears to be other christians who insist that Jesus was a real person and not only that but the one and only creator of everything. again I can respect what they want to believe but only to the point that this cult has any impact upon my life or that of my family.

Of course christians make it up as they go!

They pick and choose what they want to believe. Then when a christian is questioned about it they just give excuse's.

reply to post by TheDarkEnchantress


Thanx for the input, who do you think christians are making excuses for fundamentally?

For themselves because they fear questioning their beliefs as they may find error?

Or are they making excuses for their god who doesnt appear to back up their claims with evidence of its reality?

Does the jesus god only preach to the converted?

Originally posted by TheDarkEnchantress
Of course christians make it up as they go!

They pick and choose what they want to believe. Then when a christian is questioned about it they just give excuse's.

It really depends on who they are mate. If you know the bible like the back of your hand then there should be no need to start making things up. If you know what the bible says you should know that it has many great examples of how we should live and act and then there should be no trouble when you have to answer questions.
If a christian pics what they want to believe are they really christian any more?

It really depends on who they are mate. If you know the bible like the back of your hand then there should be no need to start making things up. If you know what the bible says you should know that it has many great examples of how we should live and act and then there should be no trouble when you have to answer questions. reply to post by funky monk



So you obviously believe gay people should be stoned to death then?

"Don't look to works of fiction for your reality. I.E. Da Vinci Code."

Normally I try to avoid these arguments that ultimately turn into whether god is real or not but this one struck me.

DVC is clearly a movie. It was invented by a writer and directed by a director. I think we can all agree that is shouldn't be taken as full truth.

Have we proven the bible is real and not just some work of a man who wanted to write a good book?

Think I am picking on you?? Fine I will fire at myself too.

Am I sure that the Book of the Dead is real and that Isis is real? My faith says so and nothing you say will shake it. But ask me to prove it...

Let's pick one bored member with a ton of money from each religion and have them prove their doctrine is real and that it wasn't just an invention of a damn fine writer.

Ever seen the movie Rat Race? That's what comes to mind...futile.

If moocowman disagrees with the bible, then state your point. It's faily clear he won't change but why are you so vehement on proving something that cannot be proven?

I cannot prove to you that Isis searched the world for her late husband that Set killed and entombed. I cannot prove she assists in judgement and the weighing of the heart. Go with the faith my friend.

Believe it or not I believe god and Jesus were real. I don't believe he is the one true power but I believe he is there.

...then again...I can't prove to you he isn't either

PS...

one other one I took interest in.

I am not attacking but am I to understand as long as you only keep a slave for 7 years it is ok by the lord? That's kind of touchy for me. Please however if I read that post wrong correct me in the words of the bible and I will concede

-Kyo

[edit on 8-8-2008 by KyoZero]

Originally posted by moocowman
It really depends on who they are mate. If you know the bible like the back of your hand then there should be no need to start making things up. If you know what the bible says you should know that it has many great examples of how we should live and act and then there should be no trouble when you have to answer questions. reply to post by funky monk

 

So you obviously believe gay people should be stoned to death then?

No I dont, I belive you should love you neighbor as you love youself. I said the bible should provide EXAMPLE of how we should live. There are things you just dont do in this day and age.
Never once have I said homosexual people should be treaded with hostility, rather do as Jesus did and at least make an attempt to try and love the people around you, and for the record I dont think there is anything wrong with gay people - although I belive that God didnt make us to be like that, gay people have the right be like that and the only way that me and my religion is going to have much of an effect on them is by accepting them and hopefuly one day we will see a change - but Im not up every night waiting for that change to happen, nor am I out to "save" every gay person I see/meet.

reply to post by moocowman


Since you SAID that you didn't copy and paste, I was going to just leave and not point it out, but, since it seems you want to continue insulting Christianity, I had to provide the truth.

Your quote;

The testimony (supposed, as the work in question is now lost) of Thallus is also worthless on the historicity question. Julius Africanus, in a surviving fragment, states that Thallus in the period before 221 A.D., wrote that the darkness which supposedly covered the earth at the time of the Crucifixion was due to the death of Jesus. He is merely telling what the Christians of the time believed. We have no evidence at all that there ever even was an eclipse at the time when Jesus was supposedly crucified.

I find THIS article at Infidels.org
which is word for word what you had written, EVERYTHING you had written..
I know you didn't just happen to come up with this EXACT copy.

The testimony (supposed, as the work in question is now lost) of Thallus is also worthless on the historicity question. Julius Africanus, in a surviving fragment, states that Thallus in the period before 221 A.D., wrote that the darkness which supposedly covered the earth at the time of the Crucifixion was due to the death of Jesus. He is merely telling what the Christians of the time believed. We have no evidence at all that there ever even was an eclipse at the time when Jesus was supposedly crucified.

reply to post by Clearskies



Exuse me, please dont call me a liar, You orginally accused me of copying and pasting from infidel.org , I specifically replied I did not copy from that website which is the truth. I did not AT ANYTIME say I had not c&pd.

But like I allready asked you, if I even had, does it make the statements any less valid? And if you can show how thei,not valid I'll be the first one to examins the evidence.

You accuse me of insulting christianity, yet you obviously overlook the stupidity of this statement.

How is it possible to in anyway damage (insult) the undamagable, did you miss the point of your own scripture? How can the complete be anything but complete?

I have not in anyway gone out to insult anyone, and as far as I'm aware have not done so. I do treat religion childlike because religious doctrines appear to be childish, if it were in fact possible to offend the mind of the universe I'm sure it would inform me directly and not throw its dummy in the dirt.

You have a few options open to you, you can suck your thumb and not post again, you can reply in a rant using circular reasoning to to try prove the unprovable.

You could ask yourself the question "does this guy have a point does my beleif system appear to be ad hoc and abhorant to others and if so why?"

Please bear in mind, I have come to this thread with an open mind and a question , "do christians make it up as they go along?" up until this point the general impression I had from christians was that most did have a tendancy to make it up as they go along. This was not necasserily an observation of individual christians but the response of the various (as there are many types] christians broadly over time.

On several occassions it has beeen pointed out to me by christians that my questions in relation to the old testament/ old covenent/ torah are invalid because it no longer applies to them.

But this is contradicted by the fact that christians still for example consider homosexuals an abomination, or that anyone working on the sabbath should be put to death which is old testament doctrine.

This paradoxical problem is compounded by the same christians replying to posts elsewhere and using the old testament to validate their beliefs.


As I have yet to resolve this one little issue without pointless circular reasoning as an answer, perhaps I should ask my question in another more simpler way. Perhaps if I do this I may get a yes or no answer and expand on the yesses and the nos seperately as to the whys.

Please feel free to involve yourself in the next thread I will try and pose an easy to answer question so it would be less likely to get caught up in circular reasoning

Regards

Moocowman