Jesus Christ did not exist!

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by Tricky63

 

I think you are omitting a large group in there who are critical of the notion. Unlike all the conspiracies that we talk about, a God is not a provable or falsifiable concept. This "God" has never left and evidence behind to suggest that he exists, so all we can do is speculate- which is a waste of time.

Ether he doesn't leave behind evidence because he doesn't exist or he doesn't want to leave behind evidence.

You see Wolf, that is where the real disagreement is - evidence. You say that there is no evidence and I say there is so much that it threatens to bury us. So the question is what constitutes evidence.

Richard Carrier once said that if God wanted us to believe He would have written "Jesus is Lord" in big block letters on the surface of the moon. A Christian respondent then noted that some people still wouldn't believe because He hadn't written it in cursive.

On that level evidence is subjective. I accept the Resurrection account because it passes muster using standard historiographic methods common to historians working with ancient manuscripts and artifacts. Others, I suspect like yourself (and correct me if I'm wrong there) look at that same evidence and say it doesn't pass the smell test. If we're just talking about our own personal decision on the religious implications of the Bible we can agree to disagree, shake hands and go get a beer.

For most Christians, they don't NEED the evidence that is there in order to support their belief - and their conversation in discussions like this shows it. God love them, but they aren't much help to my side of the debate. Likewise there are atheist/agnostics who aren't helpful to your side. They make up evidence for their case, continue to use refuted evidence or arguments, etc.

If there is anything you and I can agree upon is we need to settle upon what constitutes evidence. Once we can do that, then I think the premise of God, at least in the Judeo-Christian sense, IS falsifiable and can be settled.

reply to post by papabryant


If I were to say the phrase "Beyond reasonable doubt" would that help you understand my position.

I do not believe that God(s) exist.
I do not believe that God(s) do not exist.

Neither is provable.

The bible is written by man. There is where the problem lies. If it is divinely inspired, there is no way to work out by how much or at all. The simple fact that it doesn't agree with itself at times, and is plagued by errors and needs to be rigorously studied suggests that no divine being has any interest in preserving the message. There is no unifying truth, as christians have fractured into thousands of sects all disagreeing on the meaning of the bible.

There are around 12 holy books in the world, including the bible and all of them say that they are the ultimate divine inspired truth and that all the others are wrong. They can't all be right but they can all be wrong and logically they are (at least for the most part).

The bible is useless are evidence.

Outside of the bible there is no evidence that is not subjective.

If God is real then I invite him to show up and leave evidence beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise, he has done little to get, earn, or warrant belief.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by papabryant

 

If I were to say the phrase "Beyond reasonable doubt" would that help you understand my position.

Yes it does, although it creates as many problems as it answers, IMHO. The whole question of whether "extraordinary events" require extraordinary evidence gets raised. I'm sure you can figure which side I come down on on that one, but at the last resort that is up to the conscience of the individual.

My own opinion is that if an event occurs in time and space it leaves evidence behind. The quality of that evidence is open for debate, by necessity if nothing else. But if that evidence is capable of being analysed it then can proven or disproven. If God interacted with humans, there is evidence left behind. Some evidence will be better than others, but judgements CAN be made. I personally don't find the idea of saying "ultimately you can't know anything" very convincing. There is nothing wrong with basing belief on probability, and the stronger the probability the more confident you can feel about that choice.

The bible is written by man. There is where the problem lies. If it is divinely inspired, there is no way to work out by how much or at all. The simple fact that it doesn't agree with itself at times, and is plagued by errors and needs to be rigorously studied suggests that no divine being has any interest in preserving the message.

No surprise we disagree here either. Some parts of the Biblical message are quite easy for us to understand, despite the fact it was first presented to a society that was so vastly different from our own. Other parts need to be taken in context, no different than any other book or magazine article you read. The fact that it requires greater study due to the time span between then and now is neutral to my mind on divine inspiration.

But one thing I must note is the notion that the Bible "disagrees" with itself or is plagued by "errors" is spurious at best. When you engage in detailed study, you find that these apparent errors and disagreements vanish. TFor example, there are places where the archeological record is silent concerning Biblical events, but there simply have not ever been an archeological finding that contradicts what the Bible says occurs. And that isn't open for debate.

What IS open is did those events that archeology confirms happen for the reason the Bible claims. For instance, we know that the walls around Jericho fell outward towards the attackers. This has happened nowhere else in the world. The issue of dating aside, the question then is did it occur because of the interdiction of God directly into history.

THAT is the leap of faith, IMO. Its not what happened, but why.

If God is real then I invite him to show up and leave evidence beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise, he has done little to get, earn, or warrant belief.

I hope you get what you want, my skeptical friend.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by papabryant]

reply to post by papabryant


Maybe I should have clarified a bit more.

Disagreements and errors. It's not hard to find these, a quick googles search will provide exhaustive lists. Some are more solvable than others.

For instance, in one place it says "God spoke to Moses face to face" and another part says "No one can see God and live" yadiyada.

Errors, well, bats are not birds, whales are not fish, pi does not equal 3. And my favourite of all you cannot display stripes to a pregnant cow and have it bear striped claves. There are other good ones like, the world is not flat, there is no firmament, the earth and everything was not created in 6 days, the earth is not older than the celestial bodies. I could go on.

But here's the clincher for me. The plagiarism. Most of the old testament is based on Zoroastrianism and the ancient Egyptian religion. Some things are almost copied word for word.

Then there's the fact that there is little agreement between scholars who wrote Mat, Mark, Luke and John. What is agreed on is that they are not eyewitness accounts so are hearsay. It is generally agreed that John is written around 90 AD, forty years after the supposed events.

No archaeological evidence against the bible? Well maybe, but there is astronomical, geological and biological evidence against it. No flood. Some of the astrological events, like eclipsed are not recorded outside the bible. And evolution rules out pretty much all of genesis.

There is no evidence of Jesus outside of the bible ether, which is pretty damning.

Evidence on the side of the bible is not great, and Occam's Razor doesn't do it much favours.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by papabryant

 

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more.

I wish you had, because I had thought you were the mythical "enlightened skeptic" who would discuss the more difficult questions like the problem of evil or the validity of the kalam argument.

Instead I get refered to the same lists that every other 13 year old posts when he's po'ed at his parents at Christmas time when he doesn't get an x-Box 360.

Really dude, everything you listed has been *itch-slapped for about 300 years.

For instance, in one place it says "God spoke to Moses face to face" and another part says "No one can see God and live" yadiyada.

www.tektonics.org...

Errors, well, bats are not birds, whales are not fish,...

Nor does the Bible claim they are. IF you had bothered to research this, you would know that the ancient Hebrews classified animals according to body type and function. The word TRANSLATED as "bird" is the Hebrew "'ouph", which when transliterated means "animal WITH A WING", and is used in both the Bible and other Semitic documents to describe birds, bats and insects.

...pi does not equal 3.

And once again, the Bible doesn't claim it is. A skeptic once wrote in the magazine Biblical Errancy:

I can say that it must be 31.4159265...cubits, not 31.4. We all make an agreement to round to a certain place. [bold] Remembering that the circumference was not necessarily a calculation, but an observation, probably done by using a forearm as a ruler, it would be logical to round to the nearest cubit.[/bold] Any diameter from 9.5 cubits to 10.5 cubits would round to 10 cubits.... The reportage would be correct, rounded to the nearest unit.... in the days when basins were measured by forearms, the nearest cubit was as good reporting as you could get, and in the case of the above-mentioned possible "precise" measurements, can indeed be an accurate representation of what was there.

So what was that objection again?

And my favourite of all you cannot display stripes to a pregnant cow and have it bear striped claves.

IF you had bothered to read further on (Gen. 31:10-13) you would see that God stepped in and caused the calfs to be born with stripes - to change the odds Laban had saddled Jacob with. You didn't read far enough.

There are other good ones like, the world is not flat,

The Bible says the world is round. Ancient Hebrew doesn't have a word for sphere.

there is no firmament, the earth and everything was not created in 6 days, the earth is not older than the celestial bodies. I could go on.

Not until you read this: beer-and-theology.blogspot.com...
(It's a side by side comparison of Genesis and the Big Bang scenario that should dispell you of the notion that the Bible teaches YEC)

But here's the clincher for me. The plagiarism. Most of the old testament is based on Zoroastrianism and the ancient Egyptian religion. Some things are almost copied word for word.

No they are not. Zorastrianism and Judaism are about as far apart as can be. Satan appears in Job, which predates the Persian exile, and his relationship to God bears no resemalance to the dualism of Ahriman and Ohrmazd. See www.tektonics.org...

And if you will check my posts on this site I refute the Egyptian connection.

Con't

reply to post by papabryant


I stand corrected on a few things. Though I'd like to see you refute the Egyptian connection.

[edit on 19/11/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by papabryant

But one thing I must note is the notion that the Bible "disagrees" with itself or is plagued by "errors" is spurious at best. When you engage in detailed study, you find that these apparent errors and disagreements vanish.

Do you really want me to refute this? I can put together a quick list if you like...

I've already found thousands of direct contradictions in the bible...

Then there's the fact that there is little agreement between scholars who wrote Mat, Mark, Luke and John.

Says who? Scholars are almost universal in their assessment of the Gospels, and anyone who told you otherwise is certifiable. Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by their named authors, while John was written by committee in his name (a common Semitic phenominon) by his disciples.

What is agreed on is that they are not eyewitness accounts so are hearsay.

Wrong on all counts. Matthew most certainly was an eyewitness, and textual scholars acknowledge this. It bears all the internal signs. Mark used some of Matthew as a base and then spoke with eyewitnesses. Luke likewise reused some materials from Matthew and Mark, then spoke with eyewitnesses (and reknown Historian A.N. Sherwin-Wright said Luke was among the very best of the ancient historians). John was the rememberances of his disciples of the stories he told them.

Who the *ell told you otherwise?

It is generally agreed that John is written around 90 AD, forty years after the supposed events.

Once again you're wrong, but you ain't going to believe me on this one. John appears about 110 AD, and the earilest copy we have dates to 120 AD. You're giving the text too much credit!

But this is still a mark in the NT favor. This is still within the lifetimes of persons, friend or foe to the Jesus movement, who could come forward and challenge the accounts. They didn't, even though the foes would certainly have reason to, and the movement was in no position to stop them.

Then there is issue of reliability of the text you've raised. Matthew and Mark appeared within 20 years, Luke within 30, and John within 50. We have multiple copies within a generation of autograph. The next ancient text in reliability? The Illiad. And the oldest copy comparable to autograph? 500 YEARS!!! And the copies have foundational changes, unlike the NT where any changes are scribist error and regional variations.

Thanks for making MY point.

No archaeological evidence against the bible? Well maybe, but there is astronomical, geological and biological evidence against it. No flood. Some of the astrological events, like eclipsed are not recorded outside the bible. And evolution rules out pretty much all of genesis.

Once again you talk like a 13 year old trying to *iss off his parents. Reading the previous link at Beer and Theology should dispell this one. As far as astrological events - provide details and we can take a whack at this one too, one at a time.

There is no evidence of Jesus outside of the bible ether, which is pretty damning.

We have more and better textual evidence for the live of Jesus and the events within than we do for the EXISTANCE of Julius Caesar. citing Remsberg's list will just get you laughed at. Josephus, Tactitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Lucian, the Talmudic references, Thallus and Mara Bar-Serapion all mention Jesus, and their references are of varying levels of reliability. See www.tektonics.org...

Evidence on the side of the bible is not great, and Occam's Razor doesn't do it much favours.

Evidence on the side of the Bible is overwhelming in its favor and you are only 13 years old. Right?

Sigh. And you showed so much promise....

[edit on 19-11-2008 by papabryant]

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by papabryant

 

But one thing I must note is the notion that the Bible "disagrees" with itself or is plagued by "errors" is spurious at best. When you engage in detailed study, you find that these apparent errors and disagreements vanish.

Do you really want me to refute this? I can put together a quick list if you like...

I've already found thousands of direct contradictions in the bible...

All you have found is lists of misreadings and decontextualizations done by 13 year olds. Do you honestly think no one ever looked into these "contradictions" friend? There are reasons that Biblical Scholars do not take these lists seriously, and its because these "contradictions" are based on uncritical readings of the text.

They are resolved, every one of them -- save one.

The problem of evil.

And it has an answer, just not an emotionally satisfying one.

So post your list, thats fine. But before I answer them, you must refute my article The Kalam and Teleological Arguements as Proof of the Christian God; or, Sherman, Set the Wayback Machine for the Big Bang , found at beer-and-theology.blogspot.com... (second article - the first is an appendix to the article).This was adapted from a research paper that I wrote for a Medieval Philosophy class. I got an A+.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by papabryant

 

I stand corrected on a few things. Though I'd like to see you refute the Egyptian connection.

[edit on 19/11/2008 by Good Wolf]

I will find the link to what I wrote before and post it here in a few minutes.

And please forgive the brute tone; a little frustrated about some things. My apologies.

The controversy over whether Jesus actually existed is nothing new. There has been much discussion over the past two hundred years as to whether Jesus was a myth, a plagiarization of pagan beliefs, or the Son of God. While it is true that there are no written documents before 50 bc that mention Jesus, many historians have always believed in His existence. Most of the written documents are copies of copies and the originals have been lost.

The writings that do mention Jesus or suggest Jesus can be interpreted as coming from the actual Christian community. Yeshua is Hebrew for Joshua which was a common name. The problem with threads like this is that the OP is asking for definitive proof of something that is supposed to have happened over two thousand years ago.

Christianity is based on faith. Christians do not need definitive proof. For the Christian, no explanation in necessary; for the rest of the world, no explanation is enough. I have never understood the need of some people to discredit another’s faith or belief. If you are looking for someone to come to this thread and give you the ‘proof’ you are asking for, you will be disappointed.

Below is the post I made here on this site. I also found
www.christian-thinktank.com... ( series on ANE literary borrowing)
and www.christian-thinktank.com... (a shorter article on Mosaic authorship concerning copying from ANE texts) and www.tektonics.org... (on Akhenaten and Judaism) and www.christian-thinktank.com... (on Special Topics concerning borrowing in the Exodus account)

They might have common sources, but The Bible most certainly did not copy from other ANE religions. Simply put, when borrowing does occur it leaves tell tale signs in the borrowing tradition that simply are not present in the Biblical accounts. A much more likely account is they were written IN RESPONSE to the Summerian stories, since durring the Exodus the Israelites would have been at their most vulnerable to foreign influence - such as the Midianite attempt at genocide by prostituting their women to ruin family cohesion.

The 10 Commandments DOES come from Egypt, but not from myths. It comes from the Egpytian Book of the Dead. Almost word for word. Moses got the Ten Commandments sure ... but he got them while living in Egypt and being taught by the Egyptian priests about the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Sigh. No, it does not. First, the only Egyptologist that believes this is Ahmed Osman, and Ahmed Osman is widely concidered a crackpot by his fellow Egyptologists.

Secondly, they are NOT "almost word for word". They are not even close to each other.

And lastly, and most damningly in a comparative religious sense, the "borrowed" passages do not fit the context properly - why in the world would the Israelites copy a simple prayer of supplication and aggrandize it into lawgiving from their deity? That kind of rachetting up of the message has never been found ANYWHERE else in the known world, so the level of proof needed to claim borrowning is much more than a few alleged simularities that turn out not to be so simular.

(Shakes head and walks away) I need an asperin.

Those who DO believe in Jesus can rest in the fact that those who "DON'T" will soon perish.

God bless you all for we are sinners "all"....

reply to post by heliosprime

Those who DO believe in Jesus can rest in the fact that those who "DON'T" will soon perish.

They can only rest in that once they have hypnotised themselves past the point where they can no longer distinguish truth from belief.